Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G.S. KAMAL, J
SRI. BHARAMANAGOUDA S/O. DODDAPAP GEJJI – Appellant
Versus
SRI. IRAPPA S/O. DODDAPPA GEJJI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court observes that rejection of plaint needs trial. (Para 1 , 4 , 8) |
| 2. plaintiff claims properties from partition. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. argument against the suit based on limitation. (Para 6) |
| 4. mixed questions of fact require trial. (Para 9) |
| 5. court fee issues manageable without rejection. (Para 10) |
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL)
151 of the CPC.
3. The written statement is filed by the defendant contending that the partition had indeed taken place in the year 2001 and in terms of which the suit properties were allotted to the share of the defendant. He also contends that since the suit is one for declaration, the Court fee was not paid properly.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. Heard. Perused the records.
9. As rightly taken note of by the trial Court, these are the mixed questions of fact and law required to be determined after the trial. The same therefore cannot be found fault with.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
