Joseph v. Jose
Case brief
What is this about?
The court held that a plaintiff avoiding a cancellation deed by seeking a declaration need not pay ad valorem court fee under Section 40. The impugned order directing such fee payment was set aside, and the original petition was allowed. The lower court was directed to proceed with the suit.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order directing payment of court fee under Section 40 set aside; Plaintiff directed to pay fee under Section 25(d)(ii); Original Petition allowed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/12TH BHADRA 1934
OP(C).No. 1362 of 2012 (O)
OS.562/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY
PETITIONER(S):
JOSEPH,
S/O. KUNJUVAREED, AGED 76 YEARS, KANDAMKULATHY HOUSE NALUKETTU DESOM, KIZHAKKUMURY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
RESPONDENT(S):
JOSE
S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS, KANDAMKULATHY HOUSE NALUKETTU DESOM, KIZHAKKUMURY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 001.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff needs to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act or Section 25(d)(ii).
Whether the impugned order directing payment of court fee under Section 40 is legally sustainable.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Joseph
- respondent
Jose
Coram
V. Chitambaresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court