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

2001 Supreme(Pat) 348

NAGENDRA RAI
Bimal Kishore Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Beena Devi – Respondent


Judgment

1. This revision application is barred by limitation.

2. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this revision application is condoned.

3. The tenant defendant is the petitioner. This revision application has been filed under section 14(8) of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment dated 25.9.2000 passed by the Munsif, Danapur decreeing the suit for eviction of the plaintiff-opposite party against the defendant petitioner.

4. The plaintiffs case in brief, is that holding no. 116 situate in mohalla Bibiganj within Danapur Municipality belonged to one Kailasho Kuer grand mother of plaintiff-opposite party no. 2 Kanhaiya Prasad Gupta. The description of the said holding has been given in Schedule-A of the plaint. Her name was recorded in the records of the Municipality and taxes were being paid during her life time. She died leaving behind her two sons, namely, Lakshmi Narain and Ramchandar Prasad the father of plaintiff-opposite party no. 2, and accordingly, the property described in Scheduie-A of the plaint was inherit











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