S.N.Navaneethan v. R.Mylsamy
Case brief
What is this about?
This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected a plaint on grounds of improper court fee valuation. The court held that since the suit involved cancellation of an assignment deed, valuation under Section 40 based on the document's value was correct.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD).No.1463 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 29.06.2018 DELIVERED ON 02.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
C.R.P.(PD).No.1463 of 2017
S.N.Navaneethan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Mylsamy
2.Panneerselvam
3.K.Arumugam
4.K.G.Somasundaram
5.M/s. The Lakshmi Mills Company Limited
rep. By its Managing Director
1100, Avinashi Road
Pappanaickanpalayam
Coimbatore-641 037
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 28.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.576 of 2016 in O.S.No.358/2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
1/10
C.R.P.(PD).No.1463 of 2017
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit to declare a deed of assignment null and void should be valued based on the relief sought or the value of the subject matter under Section 40.
Whether the order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for improper court fee valuation was sustainable.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.N.Navaneethan
- respondent
R.Mylsamy
- respondent
Panneerselvam
- respondent
K.Arumugam
- respondent
K.G.Somasundaram
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court