SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Zoharbee – Appellant
Versus
Imam Khan (D) Thr. Lrs. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. In these appeals, challenge is laid to final judgment and order dated 1st March 2012 in Second Appeal No.435 of 2011 with Civil Application No.10306 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad whereby the appellants assailed the order of the First Appellate Court in RCA No.87 of 20051[ District Judge, Aurangabad] dated 4th March 2005, overturning the findings of the Civil Court2[2nd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.) Aurangabad in RCS No.310/99], was rejected.
2. The short conspectus of facts is that the appellant’s husband namely Chand Khan passed away and now this litigation pertains to the property he left behind, between his surviving spouse namely Zoharbee3[Hereinafter Defendant No.1] and his brother i.e. Respondent Imam Khan4[Hereinafter Plaintiff]. The plot of land which is germane to the dispute is land S.No.22/3 and 22/1 of Gut No. 107 and Gut No.126. It is the plaintiff’s case that all the property left behind by the deceased Chand Khan is matruka property and since he died issueless, as per Mohammedan law the former would be entitled to 3/4th of the total property and only the remaining 1/4th would fall in the rights and
Surat Singh (dead) v. Siri Bhagwan 2018 (4) SCC 562 [Para 5] – Relied.
Hasmat Ali v. Ameena Bibi & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 1142 [Para 5] – Relied.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana
RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.