HOW TO DEDUCTE THE PERSONAL EXPENSES OF DECEASED

WHILE FIXING COMPENSATION IN ACCIDENT CASES, THE SETTLED METHOD FOR ARRIVING PERSONAL EXPENSES OF DECEASED FROM HIS SALARY DEPENDS UPON THE DEPENDENTS . IF DEPENDENTS ARE 2 TO3, 1/3rd . IF 4 TO 6 -1/4th AND IF MORE THAN 6-1/5th OF THE SALARY MAY BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS SALARY TOWARDS EXPENSES OF DECEASED-2010[3] ALT 209.

WAKF AC T - EVICTION

SEC.54 OF WAKF ACT :- THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HAS TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO THE ENCROACHER, AND AFTER HEARING HIS OBJECTIONS AND AFTER SATISFYING THAT THE PROPERTY IS WAKF, THEN THE E.O. MAY ORDER FOR EVICTION WITHIN CERTAIN PERIOD. ON THE FAILURE OF ENCROACHER IN REMOVING ENCROACHMENT, THEN THE E.O. MAY APPLY TO R.D.O. FOR EVICTION PROCEEDINGS -2010[3] ALT 244.

A.P. COURT FEE -TRUST PROPERTY

SEC.27 [1] -IN A SUIT FOR POSSESSION OR JOINT POSSESSION OF TRUST PROPERTY OR FOR A DECLARATION, WITH OR WITHOUT CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, BETWEEN THE TRUSTEES OR RIVAL CLAIMANTS TO THE OFFICE OF TRUSTEE OR BETWEEN A TRUSTEE AND A PERSON WHO HAS CEASED TO BE A TRUSTEE, FEE SHALL BE COMPUTED ON ONE-FIFTH OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM FEE OF RUPEES TWO HUNDRED OR WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS NO MARKET VALUE, ON RUPEES ONE THOUSAND., [2] WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS NO MARKET VALUE, VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS SHALL BE THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE PLAINT. EXPLANATION ;- FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, PROPERTY COMPRISED IN A HINDU, MUSLIM OR OTHER RELIGIOUS OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE TRUST PROPERTY AND THE MANAGER OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE TRUSTEE THEREOF.

RES-JUDICATE AND RES-SUB-JUDIE

EXPAMLES:- THE EARLIER CIVIL SUIT RELATED TO RIGHT OF WORSHIP AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OR MANAGEMENT OF THE MAIN TOWN TEMPLE WHILE THE PRESENT SUIT I SNOT DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY INVOLVED THESE ISSUES, IT IS PURELY FILED FOR THE TITLE TO THE SUIT PROPERTY , WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED.SO THE QUESTION OF APPLICATION OF RESJUDICATA NOT APPLIES-2002 S.A.R. [CIVIL] 719; ISSUE INTER SE THE PARTIES HAVING BEEN DECIDED IN EARLIER PROCEEDING UNDER THE VERY SAME ACT- RAISING THE SOME ISSUE IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS-IMPERMISSIBLE-EVEN IF RES-JUDICATA IN ITS STRICT SENSE MAY NOT APPLY BUT ITS PRINCIPLE WOULD BE APPLICABLE-PARTIES IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDING MAY RAISE THE SAME ISSUE UNDER THE SAME ACT BUT FAILED TO RAISE, CAN NOT RAISE THE SAME NOW, ON THE BASIS OF CONSTRUCTIVE RESJUDICATA-ESTOPPEL-1998 SAR [CIVIL]939.;

Amendment of Pleadings Or.6,Rule 17,18 C.P.C.

1].AMENDMENT OF PLAINT -SHALL BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, NAMELY,[1] WHEN THE NATURE OF THE SUIT IS CHANGED BY PERMITTING AMENDMENT ;[2]WHEN AMENDMENT WOULD RESULT IN INTRODUCING NEW CAUSE OF ACTION AND INTENDS TO PREJUDICE THE OTHER PARTY AND [3]WHEN ALLOWING AMENDMENT APPLICATION DEFEATS THE LAW OF LIMITATION-2009[1]ALT22.4[SC]=2008[4] SC J 680. 2]. seeking amendment of plaint for declaration and cancellation of documents, after filing written statement where the defendant has taken the same objections in his written statement, for declaration and cancellation is 3 years and amendment sought for ,after 4 years of written statement, is not maintainable-1996 S A.R. civil 639.