Madhya Pradesh Court March 1958 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kaluram and anr. Vs. Mehtab Bai and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959MP181
ORDERP.V. Dixit, J.1. The facts of this revision petition are that the plaintiff-applicants instituted a suit against the opponents for partition of property belonging to a joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the value of the joint family property was Rs. 61,000/-; that they had one-third share in the property; that they were already in possession of a house belonging to the joint family valued at Rs. 7,000/s and that the defendants were denying their right to any share in the property which was in their possession.The plaintiffs paid a Court-fee of Rs. 10/-under Schedule II, Article 17 (vi) of the Court-fees Act. One of the objections which the defendants raised was that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient and that the plaintiffs should have paid ad valorem Court-fee on the valuation of the share they claimed in the property alleged to be the joint family property. The learned District Judge of Ratlam, while dismi...
Binodilal Bishambhardayal and ors. Heirs and Legal Representatives of ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1958MP391
V.R. Newaskar, J.1. This is a petition by appellant No. 1 Binodilal s/o Bishambhardayal for setting aside a consent decree. For securing this he invokes powers of this Court under Section 151, C. P. C.2. Facts leading upto the present petition are as follows :Petitioner Binodilal, along with his two brothers Kirodimal and Mahabirdayal and his two minor nephews Virendrakumar and Satyendra-kumar sons of Raghuvirchand, was plaintiff in a suit filed against the heirs and legal representatives of one Virendrasingh Deshmukh viz. Satyendra singh and others for the recovery of Rs. 27,360/-.3. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiffs including petitioner Binodilal preferred appeal against this decision. During the pendency of this appeal a compromise petition dated 1-2-1956 was filed. This was signed by Sahodra Devi w/o Raghuvirchand as representing the interest of her minor sons Virendrakumar and Satyendrakumar as also by Mahabirdayal for himself and as representing Binodilal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›