Smt. Chintamani Devi Vs. Vijay Kumar

Smt. Chintamani Devi vs Vijay Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 11, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161685

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1161685
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Valmiki J. Mehta
Decided On: Aug 11, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Chintamani Devi

Advocate Mr. Nalin Tripathi

Respondent

Vijay Kumar

Advocate Mr. Yoginder Handoo

Excerpt

.....referred to as ‘the act’) and which section deals with the suit for possession. admittedly, the subject suit is a suit for declaration, injunction and possession.2. counsel for the petitioner argues that relief of possession is consequential to the relief of declaration and therefore court fee need not be paid on the relief of possession under section 7(v). for non payment of court fee under section 7(v) of the act thus a very strange reason is put forth that once possession is claimed as a consequential relief then, possession claimed is not an independent relief.3. in my opinion, whether the relief of possession is consequential to declaration is not material because the aspect actually is that an independent relief of possession is claimed. once an additional and independent relief of possession is claimed, then, court fee has to be paid with respect to the suit claiming the relief of possession as per section 7(v) of the act by valuing the property as per the market value on the date of filing of the suit. therefore, the trial court has rightly directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit property of which possession is claimed at the market value and to pay the court fee accordingly with respect to relief of possession claimed.4. counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has sought to place reliance upon the judgments in the cases of batuk chandra patwari and ors. vs. kirti ram das and ors. air 1972 gauhati69and nokhelal jha and ors. vs. srimati rajeshwari kumari and others air1937 patna 141, however, i do not find that any of these judgments hold that if possession is claimed as an independent relief the suit has not to be valued under section 7(v) of the act as per the market value of the property on the date of filing of the suit.5. dismissed. august11 2014 ne cm(m) 117/2013

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.117/2013 11th August , 2014 % SMT. CHINTAMANI DEVI Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Nalin Tripathi, Advocate. versus VIJAY KUMAR Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 29.11.2012 by which the trial Court has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit for possession in terms of Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and which Section deals with the suit for possession. Admittedly, the subject suit is a suit for declaration, injunction and possession.

2. Counsel for the petitioner argues that relief of possession is consequential to the relief of declaration and therefore court fee need not be paid on the relief of possession under Section 7(v). For non payment of court fee under Section 7(v) of the Act thus a very strange reason is put forth that once possession is claimed as a consequential relief then, possession claimed is not an independent relief.

3. In my opinion, whether the relief of possession is consequential to declaration is not material because the aspect actually is that an independent relief of possession is claimed. Once an additional and independent relief of possession is claimed, then, court fee has to be paid with respect to the suit claiming the relief of possession as per Section 7(v) of the Act by valuing the property as per the market value on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit property of which possession is claimed at the market value and to pay the Court fee accordingly with respect to relief of possession claimed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has sought to place reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Batuk Chandra Patwari and Ors. Vs. Kirti Ram Das and Ors. AIR 1972 GAUHATI69and Nokhelal Jha and Ors. Vs. Srimati Rajeshwari Kumari and others AIR1937 Patna 141, however, I do not find that any of these judgments hold that if possession is claimed as an independent relief the suit has not to be valued under Section 7(v) of the Act as per the market value of the property on the date of filing of the suit.

5. Dismissed. AUGUST11 2014 Ne CM(M) 117/2013

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Smt. Chintamani Devi vs Vijay Kumar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Valmiki J. Mehta