Published on:19 July 2023 at 19:30 IST
Court: High Court of Delhi
Citation: Neelam Batra v. Rakesh Bhatla (2014)
Honourable High Court of Delhi has held that the following principles are followed on the question of Court Fee.
- In order to decide the question of Court-fee, averments made in the plaint are to be seen and decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by the final decision of the suit on merits.
- The general principle of law is that in the case of co-owners, the possession of one is in law possession of all, unless ouster or exclusion is proved; and
- To continue to be in joint possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property.
- It is also not necessary that he should be getting a share or some income from the property so long as his right to a share and his nature of the property as joint is not disputed, the law presumes that he is in joint possession unless he is excluded from such possession.
13. It is settled law that in a suit for partition, the court fees to be paid if joint possession is pleaded by the plaintiff on the basis that he is the co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned, fixed court fees would be payable under Article 17 (vi) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act presuming the joint possession of the plaintiff even if the plaintiff is not in actual possession. It is because of the reason that in the case of co-owners, the possession of one is in law possession of all, unless from the averments in the plaint read as a whole, a clear case of ouster is made and in that situation the plaintiff is liable to pay advalorem court fees on the market value of this share as provided under Section 7(iv)(b) of the Court Fees Act notwithstanding the fact that it is also pleaded that the plaintiff was in constructive possession.”
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
