Dismissed

Heena Mathon v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2013CR/6283/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a civil revision challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee. The court held that the order was correct as the suit sought declaration of ownership of 1/6 share and enforcement of rights, distinguishing the relied-upon Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; order of the Additional Civil Judge directing payment of ad valorem court fee upheld.

Heena Mathon Vs Mohinder Singh and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

CeR Noe6283of2011

1 0 0 I C5 I Z 2 l I t Z rlo S7 Z

¶8

¶9

CHANDIGARHe

¶10

Civil Revision Nofo283 of2011 Oc49 Dateofdecisionl FebruaryOl2013

HeenaMathon

etitioner

Versus

Mohinder Singh8 others

¶15

CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

¶16

Presentl Mr AS Khinda^Advocate for^the petitioner Mr HS Sullar Advocate for Mr SugreevKapoor^Advocate for No28 5

¶17

Raian GuptaJ

¶18

This^revision petition^isdirected against^{the order} passedby Additional Civil Judge^Senior Division9Kapurthaladirecting^the plaintiffto^{pay ad valorem courtfee}

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitionerhas submittedthat order is unsustainable Plaintiff never sought^relief of Thus ad valorem court fee is not payable He has relied upon judgment repord^asSurhid Singl Sardool Singh^vs Randhir Singh others AIR 2010SC 2807

¶20

Plea has been opposedbycounsel representing

¶21

He has submittedthat plaintiffhas cleverlyworded the suit If^prayer clauseis^seen she is seekingdeclarationto the effectthat she^lsowner lll

¶22

of the land^to the^extent of 116 share She has also

¶23

saleedeeddated31 2²⁰⁰⁷ Thus paymentof^advalorem JOYTI RANI2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Batra Amit 2013.02.07 10: 15 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

1 0 0 C5 I Z 2 I Zr

ClO 7 Z tl

Clte No6283 of2011

court fee cannot be exempted

¶33

I haveheardlearnedcounsel for the partiesand givencareful thoughtto the factsofthe case

¶34

Plaintiff has challengedthe sale deed dated 31 2²⁰⁰⁷ executedby her grandfather in favour of her paternaluncle She has prayed^{fordeclarationthatsheisowner} to the extent of 116 share Thoughplaintiff^{claims that she} is in of the property standof the defendantsis that theyare in of^the property^Thusit plaintiff^is seekingownershipof^116share of^{the landas} well^as thereof Trial court has rightlydirected her to pay ad valorem COUrt fee I^Sndno legalinrmity with^theorder In the facts and circumstancesofthe^case judgmentin^Surhid Singhscassupra isnot applicableRevision petitionis hereby^dismissed

¶35

14 GUPTAI JUDGE

¶36

2013 ajpa 5ell

¶37

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

Batra Amit 2013.02.07 10: 15 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶39

Heena Mathon v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heena Mathon v. Mohinder Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Devi & Anr. Vs Kulwant Rai & Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Pal

Surinder Singh and Ors. Vs Jinderpal Gupta

Rekha Tukaram Dhonde Vs Pratibha Khan and Anr.

Darshan Singh and Another Vs Subhash Jawa and Others

M.S Dhbvn and Anr. Vs Krishan Gopal Yadav