Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)Article 17 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ms. Ranjana Arora vs Satish Kumar Arora And Ors. on 17 September, 1999
However, in Smt. Prakash Wati (Supra), Smt. Harjit Kaur (Supra), 2005 Rajdhani Law Reporter 23 and in the case of Ms. Ranjana Arora v. Satish Kumar Arora and Ors, it was held that the plaintiff who is not in possession of the property is liable to pay ad valorum Court fees on his share.
Governing Body Of Dayanand Anglo Vedic ... vs Padmanabha Padhy & Ors on 14 January, 1988
4. The plaintiff has relied on , Md. Mohammd Ali (Dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita and Ors.; , Neelavathi and Ors. v. N. Natarajan and Ors.; , Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Ors.; , Karam Singh and Ors. v. Nathu Singh; , Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. Padmanabha Pathy and Ors. and , Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. v. Galappa and Ors. to contend that only the allegations made in the plaint are to be considered for determination of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendants in the written statement and the question of Court fees payable by the plaintiff has to be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint only. The learned counsel Mr. Ahluwalia relied on the principles of law that in case of co-owners, possession of one is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is proved and continue to be in possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property. According to him it is not even necessary that a co-sharer should be getting a share or some income from the property as long as his right to a share and the nature of the property is not disputed that he is in joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession.
Abdulla Bin Ali And Ors. vs Galappa And Ors. on 1 February, 1985
4. The plaintiff has relied on , Md. Mohammd Ali (Dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita and Ors.; , Neelavathi and Ors. v. N. Natarajan and Ors.; , Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Ors.; , Karam Singh and Ors. v. Nathu Singh; , Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. Padmanabha Pathy and Ors. and , Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. v. Galappa and Ors. to contend that only the allegations made in the plaint are to be considered for determination of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendants in the written statement and the question of Court fees payable by the plaintiff has to be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint only. The learned counsel Mr. Ahluwalia relied on the principles of law that in case of co-owners, possession of one is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is proved and continue to be in possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property. According to him it is not even necessary that a co-sharer should be getting a share or some income from the property as long as his right to a share and the nature of the property is not disputed that he is in joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession.
Shri Rajiv Oberoi And Ors. vs Sh. Santosh Kumar Oberoi And Ors. on 4 February, 2005
6. For the proposition that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the properties, he is liable to pay ad-valorum court fees on his share under Section 7(iv)(b) of Court Fees Act and not under Article 17(6) of schedule II of the Court fees Act, the counsel for the defendant/applicant has relied on 1977 Rajdhani Law Reporter 54, Jamila Kahtoon v. Saidul Nisa; AIR 1999 DELHI 48, Smt. Prakash Wati v. Smt. Dayawanti; 80(1999) DLT 357, Ms. Ranjana Arora v. Satish Kumar Arora; 2005 Rajdhani Law Reports 23, Harjit Kaur v. Jagdeep Singh and , Rajiv Oberoi and Ors v. Santosh Kumar Oberoi and Ors. To contend that he could file the application under order 7 rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of plaint without filing written statment, the applicant has relied on , Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Saleem Bhai And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 December, 2002
13. The other plea of the plaintiff that the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be considered as the defendant No. 1 has not filed the written statement and the application has been filed with a view to delay the case, also run contrary to ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai (supra). The Supreme Court had held that trial Court can exercise the power under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure at any stage of the suit. The observation of the Supreme Court is extracted:
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003
4. The plaintiff has relied on , Md. Mohammd Ali (Dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita and Ors.; , Neelavathi and Ors. v. N. Natarajan and Ors.; , Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and Ors.; , Karam Singh and Ors. v. Nathu Singh; , Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. Padmanabha Pathy and Ors. and , Abdulla Bin Ali and Ors. v. Galappa and Ors. to contend that only the allegations made in the plaint are to be considered for determination of the jurisdiction and the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defense taken by the defendants in the written statement and the question of Court fees payable by the plaintiff has to be considered in the light of allegations made in the plaint only. The learned counsel Mr. Ahluwalia relied on the principles of law that in case of co-owners, possession of one is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is proved and continue to be in possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property. According to him it is not even necessary that a co-sharer should be getting a share or some income from the property as long as his right to a share and the nature of the property is not disputed that he is in joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession.