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

1970 Supreme(Bom) 116

B.N.DESHMUKH, D.B.PADHYE
Menkabai – Appellant
Versus
Manohar Mukundrao Deshpande. – Respondent


JUDGMENT - Padhye, J.

1. The present applicant Menkabai had filed a suit for partition against her step sons and their alienees. That suit was dismissed. In the suit she was permitted to sue as a pauper. The property in suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 19,767/-. The suit was contested by the defendants contending that there was already a prior partition by which the plaintiff got certain property and she was not entitled to claim a partition afresh. The defence prevailed and the suit was dismissed. Against the dismissal of her suit, the present applicant has filed the application for permission to file the appeal in forma pauperis. Rule on this application was issued.

2. Under the proviso to Rule 2 of Order 44, Civil Procedure Code, if the applicant was allowed to sue as a pauper in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, no further enquiry in respect of his pauperism shall be necessary, unless the appellate Court sees cause to direct such enquiry. The property which is alleged to have been given in the prior partition to the applicant was also a subject-matter of the suit, where the plaintiff-applicant was contending that she had a certain share in a























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