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

2006 Supreme(AP) 124

N.V.RAMANA
Mirza Raheem Baig – Appellant
Versus
Mirza Mahamood Baig – Respondent


ORDER

This revision is preferred against the order dated 17-1-2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Rangareddy in O.S.S.A. No.158 of 2004. By the said order the learned District Judge directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee under Section 34 (1) of A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

2. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession and for cancellation of registered gift deeds. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the mother of the parties and that after her death, the petitioner, her two other sons and her husband succeeded to the property and their names were also entered in the revenue records as joint pattedars. The plaintiff further contended that since there was no partition and separate possession of the suit property, he is in joint possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit is therefore filed by paying the fixed Court fee under Section 34(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. But, basing on some entries in the pahani for the years 1995-96 and 2001 and 2002, in which the name of the plaintiff is not shown either as pattedar or as possessor, the Court below held that "doc









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