LawMirror.com

Results of suit for possession court fees

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 21-30 of 94 Results

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2018
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(viA) -- Court Fee - Partition suit - Defendant not denied the possession of plaintiff - Question of Court fee in accordance with S.7(vi-A) of the Act, would arise only when plaintiff's possession is denied - Since there was no denial by defendant as neither an affidavit in support of objection regarding deficiency of Court fee nor any..........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2018
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(C) -- Suit for possession and alternatively for joint possession and declaration that sale deed executed by his co-sharers is illegal - Neither plaintiff not any of alleged co-sharer in possession of suit property - Plaintiff rightly directed to pay ad valorem Court fee...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7 -- Ad valorem Court fee - Partition suit - Where plaintiff claims to be in possession of suit property, no ad valorem Court fee is required to be affixed, as every co-sharer is by legal fiction deemed to be owner in possession of every part of property...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Article 17 -- Court fee - Suit for possession along with annulment of Will and sale deeds - Joint property - Plaintiff claimed himself to be in joint possession of property and being no, executant in possession is only required to affix Court fee in view of Art.17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act...........

PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(c), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11 -- Court fee - Earlier decree passed by Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of petitioners - In spite of said decree defendants forcibly dispossessed plaintiffs, which became compulsive necessity of plaintiffs to file suit for possession on basis of title - Petitioners were not..........

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 1, 2, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34 -- Suit for declaration - Relief of partition and possession - Plaintiff not claimed any relief of partition and possession - No pleadings regarding partition - No Court fees paid - It also not mentioned that all joint family properties are..........

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(c) -- Court fees - Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - Without claiming relief of possession, relief of permanent injunction is treated as `Substantial Relief' and not as Consequential Relief, which does not attract S.7(iv)(c) of the Act...........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2017
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7(iv)(c) -- Court fee - Suit for declaration that relinquishment deed and sale deed in question is null and void - Plaintiffs are already in possession of suit property - They need not seek cancellation of relinquishment deed or sale deed, as they are not executants of sale deed - Case falls u/s 7(iv)(c) of the Act - Plaint properly valued...........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2016
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Article 17(vi) -- Court fees - Partition suit - Where a joint possession is pleaded by plaintiff in the partition suit on the basis that he/she is a co-owner in law, then Court fee payable u/art 17(vi) of Sch.II of Act is on the presumption of joint possession of plaintiff even if he/she is not in actual possession...........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2016
Details

Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7 -- Ad valorem Court fees - Partition suit - Plaintiff continues to be joint owner of suit properties - There is no averment in plaint to suggest ouster or exclusion - Since plaintiff is in constructive possession of suit properties, therefore, she is not entitled to pay ad valorem Court fee...........

Showing : 21-30 of 94 Results