Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 365 - DELHI HIGH COURTPartition of HUF - Title to property - Requisite Court fees - HUF Property - Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court Fee and whether proper court fee has been affixed on the plaint in light of the plaintiff‟s claim that she is in constructive possession of the suit property - Held that:- plaintiff herself had valued the suit premises at Rs. 40 lakhs, but has affixed the court fees of Rs. 19.50 - court fees that is filed is apparently deficient. As per Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is required to pay the court fees on one-fourth share claimed by her. Thus, the plaintiff was required to pay the court fees at Rs. 10 lakhs being one-fourth of the value of the suit premises. Whether the suit property is self-acquired/HUF property of the father - Held that:- From the Assessment Order dated 31.03.1972 of the Assessment Year 1972-73, it is seen that the plaintiff’s father had declared some income from the suit premises in the status of HUF. It is also seen therefrom that the HUF came into existence under the assessee’s declaration made on 23.05.1966 on an affidavit. The Income Tax record of the subsequent year upto the Assessment Year 1999-2000 would evidence that the plaintiff’s father had been filing Income Tax Returns and been assessed to Income Tax as Karta of HUF. Suit premises was initially acquired by the plaintiff’s father in his own name and it was in those circumstances that the suit premises continued to be assessed to property tax in his individual name than that of HUF. The payment of property tax by any means does not create any right or title in the name of the assessee. Filing an eviction case by the plaintiff’s father in his own name instead of the HUF, can also be said to be only for the convenience. In any case, the partition could only be filed by him in his name, being the Karta of HUF. The conclusion comes out to be that the suit premises was the HUF property of the plaintiff’s father, with he being the Karta thereof till his death. Plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the suit premises. This will however be conditional to the payment of deficient court fees by the plaintiff as indicated above, which she would be required to deposit within four weeks from the date of this order - Decided partly in favour of Plaintiff.
|