Rajendra Singh Vs. Kusuma Devi

Rajendra Singh vs Kusuma Devi

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 01, 1994

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/509193

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/509193
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: T.S. Doabia, J.
Decided On: Dec 01, 1994
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendra Singh

Respondent

Kusuma Devi

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Kishan v. Godawaribai
Reported In: II(1995)ACC84

Excerpt

- .....was murdered. his widow and his daughters filed a suit for compensation. court fee was not paid. exemption was sought from the payment of court fee in view of the notification issued by the state of madhya pradesh under section 35 of the court fees act, 1870. this exemption is available to the women whose income is less than rs. 6,000/-. the trial court came to the conclusion that a case has been made for exemption and it is that order which has been challenged in this revision petition.2. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the court below did not follow proper procedure in the matter of grant of exemption. it is the basic contention that the notice was required to be given to the collector. he further stated that as laid down by a division bench of this court in ramji sharma v. high court of m.p. and ors. 1989 jlj 237 procedure indicated in the above case, should have been followed. he has also placed reliance on a decision given in k.m. nizam and anr. v. union bank of india and ors.3. the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has stated that this petition is not maintainable. this is a matter which is between the state and the plaintiffs and the defendant does not come in. for this reliance has been placed on a decision given by this court in vimal chand and anr. v. smt. gyanmala 1988 jlj 526 and kishan v. godawaribai 1988 mpwn, vol. ii, note 65.4. i have considered the matter. it may be seen that in this case issue framed i.e. no.5-a, was specific on the point whether the income of the plaintiffs individually is less than rs. 6,000/- a year with a view to prove this issue the patwari of the area was examined. he categorically stated that there is no land in the name of the plaintiffs. the naib tahsildar was also summoned as a witness. he has also supported the case of the plaintiffs.5. it may be seen that the patwari has categorically stated in his statement that he is making the statement after going through the record......

Full Judgment

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. A suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in the year 1985 is still at the preliminary stage. One Maharaj Singh was murdered. His widow and his daughters filed a suit for compensation. Court fee was not paid. Exemption was sought from the payment of Court fee in view of the notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act, 1870. This exemption is available to the women whose income is less than Rs. 6,000/-. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that a case has been made for exemption and it is that order which has been challenged in this revision petition.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the Court below did not follow proper procedure in the matter of grant of exemption. It is the basic contention that the notice was required to be given to the Collector. He further stated that as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramji Sharma v. High Court of M.P. and Ors. 1989 JLJ 237 procedure indicated in the above case, should have been followed. He has also placed reliance on a decision given in K.M. Nizam and Anr. v. Union Bank of India and Ors.

3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has stated that this petition is not maintainable. This is a matter which is between the State and the plaintiffs and the defendant does not come in. For this reliance has been placed on a decision given by this Court in Vimal Chand and Anr. v. Smt. Gyanmala 1988 JLJ 526 and Kishan v. Godawaribai 1988 MPWN, Vol. II, Note 65.

4. I have considered the matter. It may be seen that in this case issue framed i.e. No.5-A, was specific on the point whether the income of the plaintiffs individually is less than Rs. 6,000/- a year with a view to prove this issue the Patwari of the area was examined. He categorically stated that there is no land in the name of the plaintiffs. The Naib Tahsildar was also summoned as a witness. He has also supported the case of the plaintiffs.

5. It may be seen that the Patwari has categorically stated in his statement that he is making the statement after going through the record. Apart from this, the father-in-law of plaintiff No. 1 has also put in appearance. He has also stated that there is no land in the name of any of the plaintiffs. In this view of the matter the Trial Court has taken all precautions in the matter of determining the income of the plaintiffs. The issue was decided after examining the revenue officer and a finding has been recorded.

6. This revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs. Cost Rs. 250/-.

7. The suit is pending since 1985. As such, a direction is given to the Trial Court to decide the same within a period of one year. Revision petition dismissed

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 1994 Same Parties Rajendra Singh vs Kusuma Devi Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge T.S. Doabia, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles