Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Article 17 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Bibi Phul Kumari vs Ghanshyam Misra on 19 November, 1907
In support of that contention, reference was made to the principle established in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra, ILR 35 Cal 202. In that case, a defeated claimant in execution proceedings filed a suit for declaration of the right to the property and for an injunction to restrain the other party from executing the decree.
Dhondo Sakharam Kulkarni vs Govind Babaji Kulkarni on 19 August, 1884
The Privy Council held that the suit was in essence one to review the summary decisions in the claim petition, and that Art. 17(1) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act of 1870 would apply to the case. Under the Court-fees Act VII of 1870 it had been consistently held that although a suit was for the purpose of setting aside a summary decision and also for incidental reliefs like injunction, possession etc., the suit was substantially one for setting aside the summary order and would fall under Art. 17(1) of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act 1870 and the fee chargeable would be only that mentioned therein. Vide Dondo Sakharam v. Govind Babaji, ILR 9 Bom 20, Udai Chand Lal v. Firm Pannalal Champalal, AIR 1941 Pat 174, and Kalliani Kutti v. Kunhilakshmi, 1947-1 Mad LJ 1: (AIR 1947 Mad 275).
The Kaleswarar Mills, Ltd. By Agent, ... vs A.P. Govindaswami Naicker And Ors. on 22 August, 1945
(5) In Kaleswara Mills Ltd., v. Govindasami Naicker, 1945-2 Mad L. J. 403: (AIR 1946 Mad 76), it was held that a suit under O. 21, R. 103 was not one for mere determination of the question of possession of the parties concerned, but the establishment of the right or title by which the plaintiff claimed to the present possession of the property. It cannot, therefore, be said that the subject matter of the suits are the summary orders themselves; it would be more appropriate to state that the subject matter of the suit was the title to the property which was the subject matter of the claim, obstruction or redelivery proceedings, as the adjudication of title to that property would be involved in the suits.
Singarachariar, Legal Representative ... vs Lakshmanan Chettiar And Ors. on 17 November, 1948
In Singarachariar v. Lakshmanan Chettiar, 1949-1 Mad LJ 195; (AIR 1949 Mad 621), a question arose as to the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction of a suit to set aside a summary order conferring immoveable property. Section 14 of the Madras Civil Courts Act provided for the valuation of suits, the subject matter of which was land, house or garden.
1