<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (8) TMI 232 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184225</link>
    <description>A plaint expressly pleading joint possession and seeking partition and separate possession is governed by the court-fee provision applicable to a suit based on joint possession. Court-fee statutes are to be strictly construed, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the litigant claiming the lesser fee. On that basis, the proper fee was payable under Section 37(2), corresponding to Article 17(B) of the Central Act, and the contrary view taken below was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2016 14:36:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (8) TMI 232 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184225</link>
      <description>A plaint expressly pleading joint possession and seeking partition and separate possession is governed by the court-fee provision applicable to a suit based on joint possession. Court-fee statutes are to be strictly construed, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the litigant claiming the lesser fee. On that basis, the proper fee was payable under Section 37(2), corresponding to Article 17(B) of the Central Act, and the contrary view taken below was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>