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

2021 Supreme(SC) 429

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, M.R.SHAH
Saurav Jain – Appellant
Versus
A. B. P. Design – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Venkita Subramoniam T.R, Rahat Bansal, Arvind Mohan, Varun Mudgal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manoj Swarup, Jawad Tarikh, Mrigank Prabhakar, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 February 2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a first appeal1[First Appeal No. 411 of 2011] under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). On 18 October 2011, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad dismissed a suit2[Original Suit No. 602 of 2008] instituted by the first respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal by the first respondent and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court, holding that the auction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority (“MDA”) in respect of the land in dispute is null and void. The appellant is an auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA. MDA has been impleaded as the second respondent to these proceedings. Both the appellant and the second respondent have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the first respondent over the land.

Facts

2. The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad claiming to be a “transferable owner and culti


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