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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 72

Chintalapati Murthiraju – Appellant
Versus
Chintalapati Subbaraju – Respondent


ORDER

1. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore for the partition of the property of the joint family of which he was a member. He valued his suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 69,804-4-6 and he paid a court-fee of rupees 100 under Article 17 (b), Court-fees Act. He claimed inter alia a share in certain lands which stood in the names of defendants 7 to 16. The lands had belonged to the family; but had been sold for arrears of land revenue. The purchasers at the auctions were defendants 7 to 16. The plaintiffs alleged that in buying the lands these defendants were acting on behalf of the joint family and therefore were mere benamidars. The court-fee examiner considered that with regard to this part of the claim the plaint should be stamped under Section 7 (v), Court-fees Act, and the Subordinate Judge agreed with this opinion. The plaintiff then filed the present petition for revision of the Subordinate Judges order requiring him to pay the additional court-fee. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Kulandaivelu Naohiar v. Ramaswami A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 416. The petition came before Byers J., who formed the opinion that Kulandaivelu Nao




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