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

1943 Supreme(Mad) 6

KUPPUSWAMI AYYAR
Kuppuswami Goundan – Appellant
Versus
Mari Goundan alias Mariappa Goundan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The only question for consideration is whether the suit (O.S. No. 146 of 1940) on the file of the District Munsiffs Court of Dharapuram is not cognizable by that Court by reason of the fact that the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It was a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against his two brothers. The plaintiff, first defendant and the second defendant are the sons of the third defendant. In 1922, the father became divided from the sons and he left the family. The first defendant (the eldest brother) managed the affairs of the joint family and in 1938 a partition was effected between the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant. The plaintiff who was a minor then was represented by his father. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of the family properties and possession to him of his one-third share ignoring the partition of 1938 as null and void on the ground that the first defendant was allotted very much more than what he was entitled to. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 505-3-4 and on objection raised by the Court-fee Examiner that the proper article applicable was Section 7 (0





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