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

2004 Supreme(Pat) 1118

NAGENDRA RAI
Vijay Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala Devi – Respondent


Judgment

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.6.2003, passed by the appellate court in exercise of the power under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) allowing the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party for appointment of a Survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to measure the disputed land being part of Plot no. MS 14671 as well as neighbouring Plot no. 14669 north of the plot belonging to the District Board, Gaya.

2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for removal of encroachment and lost before the trial court, against which she filed an appeal and when the appeal was posted for judgment before the appellate court, she filed an application under sections 107 and 75, read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code for appointment of a survey knowing Pleader Commissioner to measure the plot in question to find out the encroachment, which has been allowed by the appellate court by the impugned order.

3. Admittedly, the land belongs to the plaintiff, which was gifted by her mother. On 28.11.1997, she sold by three saledeeds to the defendants, which have been shown in the map annexed with the plaint.

4. The plaintiffs case is that though








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