Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Rajlakshmi Dasee vs Katyayani Dasee on 8 August, 1910
At page 286 of the report his Lordship referred to a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Raj-lakshmi Dasee v. Katyayani Dasee, (1911) JLR 38 Cal 639 and distinguished that case by observing thus:
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ramkishun Mahton And Ors. vs Smt. Nero Devi And Ors. on 9 March, 1965
In Ramkishun Mahton's case, AIR 1965 Pat 486 (supra), I further pointed out that in order to determine whether the relief sought is one for a declaration in the true sense or one of declaration with consequential relief, the Court has to look to the impugned document or the decree and to see whether the plaintiff was a party to it or not. If the Court finds that the plaintiff was not party to the impugned transaction or the decree, then the Court must hold that the suit is one for a mere declaration, inasmuch as the Court has only to record a finding to that effect. In the reported case, the impugned transaction which was one of a compromise, was assailed on the ground that the signature of the plaintiff appearing thereon was a rank forgery, meaning thereby that the plaintiff was not party to it. I, therefore, took the view that it was not a case of a declaration in the true sense and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay court-fee on ad valorem basis. It must follow that where the plaintiff is a party to the impugned transaction or decree, the declaration sought in the suit involves a consequential relief by necessary implication, because in such category of cases, the plaintiff cannot get any relief unless the court comes to the conclusion that the impugned document or decree is not binding upon the plaintiff.
Daivachilaya Pillai And Ors. vs Ponnathal And Ors. on 13 December, 1894
Following a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Daivachilaya Pillai v. Ponnathal (1895) 18 Mad 459, Harries, C. J., held that the plaintiff must pay Rs. 15/- as court-fee in respect of each of the alienations. Therefore, no question arose in AIR 1940 Pat 158 as to whether the plaintiffs there were liable to pay ad valorem court-fee or not. This was naturally so because the plaintiffs in that suit were not party to the alienations which they had impugned in the suit, nor the widow who had made those alienations was in law the predecessor-in-interest of the reversioners. Therefore, this decision also is of no assistance to Mr. Agrawal
1