Skip to content


Dhondo Sakharam Kulkarni Vs. Govind Babaji Kulkarni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom20
AppellantDhondo Sakharam Kulkarni
RespondentGovind Babaji Kulkarni
Excerpt:
.....280, 281, 282, and 283 - stam--attachment--possession act vii of 1870, sched. 2, article 17, clause 1. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of.....charles sargent, c.j.1. the principle laid down in the base referred to by the district judge, ganpatgir guru bholagir v. ganpatgir i.l.r. 3 bom. 230 is not applicable to a suit under section 283, act xiv of 1882. the ruling in parvati v. kisansing printed judgment for 1881 p. 121, which we understand has always been followed in this court, shows that although the plaintiff may pray in such a suit to be awarded possession, the plaint is still to? be treated as falling under article 17, clause 1 of schedule 2 of act vii of 1870, and chargeable with only a 10-rupee stamp. we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the court below and remand the case for a decision on the merits. costs of this appeal and in the court below to abide the result.
Judgment:

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The principle laid down in the base referred to by the District Judge, Ganpatgir Guru Bholagir v. Ganpatgir I.L.R. 3 Bom. 230 is not applicable to a suit under Section 283, Act XIV of 1882. The ruling in Parvati v. Kisansing Printed Judgment for 1881 p. 121, which we understand has always been followed in this Court, shows that although the plaintiff may pray in such a suit to be awarded possession, the plaint is still to? be treated as falling under Article 17, Clause 1 of Schedule 2 of Act VII of 1870, and chargeable with only a 10-rupee stamp. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the Court below and remand the case for a decision on the merits. Costs of this appeal and in the Court below to abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //