Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Laj Khosla vs Randhir Khosla & Anr. on 28 May, 1998 cites

Purshottam Dass And Ors. vs Har Narain And Anr. on 24 October, 1977

4. A meaningful reading of the plaint would show that plaintiff is seeking a declaration that she is the owner of the property. She claims a right of residence on the basis of the Will of her husband irrespective of the title. Plaintiff is also, admittedly, in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the relief of injunction sought or a restraint from being dispossessed would flow irrespective of the declaration or title of the plaintiff. Likewise, the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the first defendant to deliver the title deeds to the defendant is founded on the plea that title deeds were in her possession but had been forcibly removed and taken away. This would fall within Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court Fee Act. Reference in this connection may be made to a Full Bench decision of this court in Mahant Purushottam Dass and Others Vs. Har Narain & Others .
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 54 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Phipson & Company Ltd. vs Gayco Private Limited on 27 January, 1976

5. The suit has already been disposed of on the basis of an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved by the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant has drawn my attention to a judgement of a Single Judge of this Court in Phipson & Company Ltd. Vs. Gayce Private Limited (1976 PLR 77). While interpreting Section 28 of the Court Fee Act, it has been held that the Court has no power after the judgement has been delivered to call upon a party or a litigant to pay the deficient court fee even if when initially a document or a plaint was entertained by mistake or inadvertence. In this case, I have reached the conclusion that the office objection is not sustainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Y Dayal - Full Document
1