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

R.J.BHAVE
KANHAIYA – Appellant
Versus
MST. LILABAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Y. S. Dharmadhikari, for the Appellant; R. K. Pandey, for the Respondent

ORDER

R. J. Bhave, J.

This revision is by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff had filed a suit claiming to be the adopted son of Puhupsingh against the daughter of Puhupsingh for declaration, partition and separate possession of certain property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The property in suit is assessed to land revenue. The prayer clause in the plaint was to the following effect:

It is prayed, therefore, that the Court be pleased to:-

(i) Declare that the plaintiff is the adopted son of late Puhupsingh.

(ii) Order partition of the Bhumiswami holding detailed in the schedule attached with the plaint.

(iii) Put the plaintiff in separate possession of his own share of the land.

(iv) Award costs of the suit; and

(v) Award such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Realising that the prayer clause was not in consonance with the provisions of the law. the plaintiff applied for amendment of the prayer clause to the following effect:

To add the following at the end of clause (i):-

and holds 2/3rd interest in the land detailed in schedule (A) of the plaint'.

(ii) To add at the end of clause (ii):-

.....in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of the Civil Procedure C

























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