https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306524 A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property had to be valued on market value under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and the plaint was found undervalued, though that defect did not defeat the decree at the appellate stage. Additional evidence recorded after closure of the defendant's evidence was held admissible because it had been allowed by court order, with notice, cross-examination, and no timely objection. The plea that the property was benami in the plaintiff's name failed because the defendant did not discharge the heavy burden of proof. The plaintiff's title, right to possession, damages for use and occupation, and the revenue attachment were sustained; furniture was excluded. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2023 17:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306524 A suit for recovery of possession of immovable property had to be valued on market value under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and the plaint was found undervalued, though that defect did not defeat the decree at the appellate stage. Additional evidence recorded after closure of the defendant's evidence was held admissible because it had been allowed by court order, with notice, cross-examination, and no timely objection. The plea that the property was benami in the plaintiff's name failed because the defendant did not discharge the heavy burden of proof. The plaintiff's title, right to possession, damages for use and occupation, and the revenue attachment were sustained; furniture was excluded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306524