ARUN MISHRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT
VINOD KUMAR DHALL – Appellant
Versus
DHARAMPAL DHALL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The defendant is in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, as affirmed by the High Court in first appeal and review applied had also been rejected by the High Court. The plaintiff-respondent, Dharampal Dhall (since deceased), filed a suit for restoration of possession, mesne profits and for a permanent injunction with respect to House No.ED-48, Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
4. The plaintiff – Dharampal Dhall came with a case that he acquired the leasehold rights on plot admeasuring 149.33 square yards under the perpetual lease deed granted by the President of India in his favour and registered on 31.01.1966. The plaintiff raised a construction over the plot and obtained the necessary sanction from the competent authority as per the site plan and got installed electricity, water, and sewerage connections in the premises. However, it was stated in the plaint itself that entire family started living in the said house. The marriage of plaintiff, as well as defendants and all sisters, were solemnized from the house in question. When the relationship of Defendant No.2-the sister of the plaintif
Surendra Kumar v. Phoolchand (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 491
Union of India v. Moksh Builders & Financiers Ltd. & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 60
Kalwa Devadattam and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors. [1964] 3 SCR 191
Sri Marcel Martins v. M. Printer & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 342
Vathsala Manickavasagam & Ors. v. N. Ganesan & Anr. (2013) 9 SCC 152
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.