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

1988 Supreme(MP) 172

G.G.SOHANI, R.K.VERMA, A.G.QURESHI
TEJKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SUBHASHCHANDRA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.I.MEHTA, M.G.UPADHYAY, M.L.Agrawal

A. G. QURESHI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant had filed an application under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to sue the respondents in the Court of the 7th Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore. It was alleged in the application that the suit property was ancestral property of which the appellant was entitled to equal share with his father Trilokchand-defendant No. 1 (now dead ). According to the applicant, the suit property was sold only for Rs. 15,000/- without a legal necessity. There were old tenants in the said property on a rent of Rs. 100/- per month. The applicant valued the suit at Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of a declaration of the sale deed as null and void, the valuation of the suit for possession was Rs. 1680/- and the mesne profits were claimed at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month amounting to Rs. 36,000/- for a period between 8-6-1977 and 7-12-1979. As such, the total valuation of the suit, according to the applicant, was Rs. 51,300/ -. On notice to the defendants, the respondent No. 6 contested the application of the applicant. After holding an enquiry pertaining to the right of the applicant to sue as an indigent person, the











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