SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 357

N.M.KASLIWAL, S.C.AGRAWAL
Babusaheb Singh – Appellant
Versus
Parsid Narain Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

ORDER:—Special leave granted.

2. In a suit for partition a preliminary decree was passed in which the properties standing in the name of original Defendant No. 30 Nathu Singh and those standing in the names of the wives of defendants Nos. 2 and 5 were excluded from partition as the. same exclusively belonged to those persons. The preliminary decree was framed in accordance with the directions given in the judgment. In an appeal from the preliminary decree, an argument was raised before the High Court that the preliminary decree was not drawn up in consonance with the judgment. The High Court in its order dated 27th June, 1978 observed in Para 4 that there was no inconsistency between any portion of the judgment and preliminary decree in respect of such properties. The Court thus observed that the counsel for the appellants gave up this point. During the proceedings for final decree, a petition was filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 1-11 stating that the Advocate Commissioner be directed to exclude lands standing in the names of Nathu Singh and the wives of defendants Nos. 2and 5. The Court passed an order 17-12-87 excluding the above lands and properties from partition.

3. A





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top