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

1965 Supreme(MP) 91

P.V.Dixit, K.L.Pandey, P.K.Tare
Laxminarayan – Appellant
Versus
Shivnarayan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. G. Tambe for applicant
R. G. Mukati for non-applicant

ORDER OF REFERENCE

( Date 3-3-1965 )

Tare, J.

1. This revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the plaintiffs against the order, dated, 27-10-1964, passed by Shri R. C. Jain, First Civil Judge Class II, Indore, in civil suit No. 12-A of 1963, directing the plaintiffs not only to specify the valuation of the plot of land, but also the valuation of the superstructure, which the petitioners do not claim as their own and which they want to be demolished, after which they seek possession of vacant plot of land. The defendant raised an objection about valuation with reference to Court-fees and jurisdiction.

2. The learned judge of the trial Court ordered the plaintiffs to state the ad valo em valuation of the plot, as also the super-structure standing thereon, both for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction relying on the observations of my brother, Sen, J. in Nilkanth Vs. Laxman 1965 JLJ-SN 52. Hence the present revision.

3. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs claimed possession of a plot of land, which only forms a portion of land revenue paying estate. The trial judge, in my opinion, was right in directing the plaintiffs to state the market value of the plot as r

















































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