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

2008 Supreme(AP) 914

G.YETHIRAJULU
Koganti Sujani – Appellant
Versus
Vissamsetti Sankar Babu – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Counsel for petitioner: Mr. N.Subba Rao
Counsel for respondents: Mr.T.S.Anand

ORDER:

This revision petition has been preferred by the fourth defendant in O.S. No.30 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District.

(2) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property, for perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and other reliefs. The suit was numbered by accepting the value of the property and the Court fee was paid. Five years after the filing of the suit, the fourth defendant filed I.A. No.278 of 2007 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to direct the plaintiff to pay deficit Court fee on the ground that the plaintiff has admitted in an application for amendment of the plaint that the property is worth more than one crore rupees. The suit was filed in 2002 and amendment petition was filed in 2006, that is four years after filing the suit mentioning that the property covered by item No.1 fetches more than one crore rupees. Para 8-A was added to the plaint as per amendment order in I.A. No.1009 of 2006 dated 30-10-2006. In that para the relevant portion reads that Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is worth more than a crore
















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