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

1965 Supreme(All) 168

B.DAYAL, RAJESHWARI PRASAD
Ram Chandra Laddha – Appellant
Versus
Teja Bai – Respondent


Advocates:
P.N. Shukla and B.L. Gupta, for Appellant; G.N. Kunzru and Shanti Bhushan, for Respondents.

Judgement

DAYAL, J. :- This is a plaintiff's appeal under S. 6-A of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a number of properties on the allegation that he was the next reversioner and that different defendants were in possession of the properties by virtue of allegations by the widow and that after the death of the widow he was entitled to the properties. The valuation was given and on the total valuation of the properties court-fee was paid. The defendants in their written statement pleaded that the suit had been undervalued and the court-fee paid was not sufficient. The point was therefore taken up as a preliminary issue before going into other facts.

2. The court below after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that against each of the defendants there was a separate cause of action and the plaintiff had therefore combined different causes of action in one suit and court-fees had therefore to be paid valuing each of the property in favour of a different defendant separately. On the question of actual value of each property, on the one hand, there was the report of the Commissioner (issued by the court). On the other hand, the plaintiff produced Sri 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