#court fee

Madras High Court rules that a plaint in a partition suit cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely for vague property description or insufficient court fees if the plaintiff establishes a cause of action and constructive possession. Such defects are triable issues, not grounds for outright rejection, reinforcing procedural fairness in property disputes.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that in suits seeking declaration of ownership after forfeiture of earnest money under an agreement to sell, the court fee must be calculated only on the earnest money amount, not the full sale consideration, if possession has not been transferred. This clarifies a critical cost threshold for property litigants and prevents disproportionate fee burdens in cases where no transfer of title or possession has occurred.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a suit seeking only a declaration of invalidity of a sale deed-without any prayer for possession-does not attract ad valorem court fees. The decision reinforces that procedural compliance under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must align with the nature of relief sought, impacting plaintiffs and defendants in property disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that plaintiffs can amend pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to claim future mesne profits even after trial begins, provided the court fee is determined post-judicial inquiry. This holding reinforces procedural flexibility in property disputes, ensuring substantive justice prevails over technical objections.