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

2014 Supreme(Raj) 604

ARUN BHANSALI
Ratan Devi – Appellant
Versus
Gawra Devi – Respondent


ORDER :

” This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the respondents under Section 11(2) & (3) of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 (' the Act of 1961” ) has been accepted and the plaintiff has been directed to pay court fees on the market value of the suit property.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for partition on 02.01.2012 claiming the suit property belonging to her ancestor Baldev Das, who died intestate prior to 1956; it was claimed that at the time of death of Baldev Das, he was survived by his son Ganga Das and grandson Raman Lal; Ganga Das also died intestate prior to 1956 and, therefore, the entire property vested in Raman Lal, who died intestate on 04.02.1976; at the time of his (Raman Lal) death, he was survived by two daughters including the petitioner and one adopted son Prem Narayan and, therefore, in the property all the three children had 1/3rd share; the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were children of Prem Narayan Daga and defendant Nos. 5 to 11 were children of her sister



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Devnarayan Sharma VS Ramphool - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 1696: Devi vs Gawra Devi and ors. ; and 2017 (1) DNJ 337-Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs ... Devi vs Gawra Devi and ors., 2017 (1) DNJ 337-Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs Bhagwati ... others judgments passed by Coordinate Bench reported in AIR 2015 (Raj.) 29-Ratan

Explanation: The description lists multiple cases and references "judgments passed by Coordinate Bench reported in AIR 2015 (Raj.) 29-Ratan" but contains no explicit keywords or phrases indicating treatment patterns such as followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, or abrogated. The fragment appears to describe or reference related judgments without clear indicators of judicial treatment, making it ambiguous.

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh VS Randhir Singh - 2010 2 Supreme 670: In a suit for declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession by a person who was not the executant of the sale deeds; court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870

Explanation: This entry describes a legal principle or holding on court fees but provides no information on subsequent judicial treatment. There are no keywords or phrases referencing how the case has been treated by later decisions, rendering the treatment unclear.

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