PAIKANSING SHEORAMSING Vs. MANIKSING MOHTABSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the order of the trial Court directing the plaintiffs applicants to pay on the plaint ad valorem court fee stamp on the value of property appertaining to plaintiffs' 1/3rd share valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 6580.

(2.) ON the allegations of the plaint, the plaintiffs-applicants' claim appears to be a pure and simple suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the joint family property of the parties whose relation is shown in the genealogical tree given below: SHEORAMSINGH ________________________|___________________________ | | | Mohtabsing (D. 1917) Suratsingh (D. 1941) Paikansingh (Plff. 1) ____________|_______________ |__________________ | | | | | Maniksingh Hirasingh Mannasingh Gokulsingh Mahepalsingh Deft. 1. Deft. 2 Deft. 3. Deft. 4. Deft. 5.

(3.) THE defendants in their pleadings denied the existence of a joint family and the joint family property. They further denied that Sheoramsingh left any property at his death and that the subsequent acquisitions were the joint acquisitions of the family. It was contended that the immovable property at Kinhi and Satalwada was the self acquisition of Mahtabsingh and the plaintiff has no share in it though after the death of Mahtabsingh he got his name fraudulently entered in the settlement records. Thus the defendants denied the plaintiff's right to a share and contended that they had already denied the plaintiff's right to a share in their reply notice dated 10th December 1943 though no such reply is on record. Defendant 4 also contended that the plaint was not adequately stamped and that the plaintiff should be required to pay ad valorem court fee on the share claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint.