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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 33614

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ramchandra Banarsi – Appellant
Versus
Radhabai @ Devkabai – Respondent
MP 3176/2023



Advocates:
Rishi Tiwari,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA nd ON THE 2 OF JANUARY, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 3176 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

RAMCHANDRA BANARSI S/O DEVILAL BANARSI, AGED ABOUT 59

1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

SHAILENDRA BANARSI S/O RAMCHANDRA BANARASI, AGED ABOUT

2. 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

JIYALAL BANARSI S/O DEVILAL BANARSI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

PRADEEP BANARSI S/O JIYALAL BANARSI, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

MAYA BANARSI W/O JIYALAL BANARSI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

SHAKUNTLA BANARSI W/O RAMCHANDRA BANARSI, AGED ABOUT

6. 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

SHEELA BANARSI W/O SHAILENDRA BANARSI, AGED ABOUT 28

7. YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY SHRI RISHI TIWARI, ADVOCATE.)

AND RADHABAI @ DEVKABAI W/O KANHAIYALAL CHOUDHARY, AGED

1.

ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND HOUSEWIFE, Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH R/O HOUSE NO.9 PENSIONPURA, MHOW, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

PARVATIBAI W/O POORAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O GRAM MALENDI, POST KODARIA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

MULIABAI W/O OMSINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

3. AGRICULTURIST, R/O GRAM KATKATKHEDI, POST KODARIYA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

SHANTIBAI W/O GAURI SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 4. OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O GRAM KATKATKHEDI, POST KODARIYA, MHOW, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR

5.

COLLECTOR OFFICE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (NO.1 BY SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, and 8 to 10 have filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2022 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has rejected the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

The facts of the case in short are as under:

02. Respondent No.1 being a plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction, partition, possession, and cost of the suit, etc. against petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 5. By way of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff is seeking the partition of agricultural land of various Survey numbers and areas mentioned in paragraph No.3 of the plaint. In paragraph No.12 of the plaint, the plaintiff valued the suit Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH Rs.10,000/- for the relief of declaration, Rs.10,000/- for the relief of permanent injunction and Rs.2,160/- (Lagaan Rs.108 X 20) for partition and possession, in total valued the suit Rs.22,160/- and paid the court fees of Rs.840/-.

03. The petitioners appeared before the Civil Court and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of non-payment of improper valuation as well as non-payment of ad-valorem court fees on the basis of the market value of the suit land. The application was opposed by the plaintiff and vide order dated 04.05.2022, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division dismissed the application. Hence, this present petition before this Court. 04. Shri Rishi Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Learned Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of subsections (vi-a) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Since the plaintiff is out of possession of the p

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 Back to top