Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 12, 1894
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774074

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Property;Family

Case Summary

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

- - It is clearly not a suit for mere declaration;

Key legal issue
Property;Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5

Legal References

Cases Referred
and Mohendro Chandra Ganguli v. Ashutosh Ganguli I. L.
Reported In
(1894)4MLJ110

Excerpt

- - it is clearly not a suit for mere declaration;1. the suit is for partition and exclusive possession of specific moieties of property which is at present in joint possession of the parties. it is clearly not a suit for mere declaration; and the value of the property is easily ascertainable.2. the suit is similar to one for partition of joint family property which is chargeable with an ad valorem fee.3. we are unable to follow the decision in kirty churn hitter v. aunath nath deb i. l. r 8 c 757 and mohendro chandra ganguli v. ashutosh ganguli i. l. r 20 c 7624. we hold that an ad, valorem fee is payable.

Full Judgment

1. The suit is for partition and exclusive possession of specific moieties of property which is at present in joint possession of the parties. It is clearly not a suit for mere declaration; and the value of the property is easily ascertainable.

2. The suit is similar to one for partition of joint family property which is chargeable with an ad valorem fee.

3. We are unable to follow the decision in Kirty Churn Hitter v. Aunath Nath Deb I. L. R 8 C 757 and Mohendro Chandra Ganguli v. Ashutosh Ganguli I. L. R 20 C 762

4. We hold that an ad, valorem fee is payable.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Reference Under Court Fees Act, Section 5 vs Same Subject Property;Family
Property;Family

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales