Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff, though seeking a declaration that the sale deed was null and void for non-payment of the full sale consideration, was seeking cancellation of the sale deed and was therefore liable to pay ad valorem court fee.
Analysis: The determining factor for court fee is the real relief disclosed by the plaint, not the drafting device used by the plaintiff. If the executant of a registered sale deed seeks to annul it on allegations that the purchaser did not pay the entire consideration and acted fraudulently, the substance of the claim is cancellation. A suit for mere declaration is maintainable only where the sale deed is void ab initio or contains a recital making non-payment or dishonour of cheques a condition for automatic revocation. The recitals in the sale deed showed that the vendors acknowledged receipt of consideration and delivery of possession, and there was no stipulation that dishonour of cheques would cancel the deed. The sale transaction was therefore complete, and non-payment of the balance consideration did not make the sale deed void. The proper remedy was to seek annulment, which attracts ad valorem court fee.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was rightly directed to pay ad valorem court fee, and the petition was not entitled to interference.