SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(AP) 556

MOTILAL B.NAIK, V.BHASKARA RAO
Saleha – Appellant
Versus
Yunus – Respondent


Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in un-numbered suit are the appellants herein. They filed this appeal aggrieved by the order of the lower Court in rejecting the plaint on the ground that proper Court fee is not paid.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case that plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. (SR) No. 2303 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Eluru for division of the plaint schedule properties and allotment of two shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3, two shares to plaintiffs 4 to 7 and one share to the plaintiff No. 8 and for rendition of accounts. The suit was valued at Rs. 5,36,714-28 for the purpose of jurisdiction and a fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- is paid under Section 34 (2) of A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The office of the lower Court took (abjection for payment of Court fee under Section 34 (2) of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court below after considering the objection and hearing the Advocate for the plaintiffs passed the order under appeal to the effect that under Muslim law there is no joint family system and therefore joint possession will not attract and rejected the plaint upholding the office objection. Against that present appeal i











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top