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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 794

ARUN KUMAR JHA
Bhutnath Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeet Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
For the Respondents: M/s Vijay Shankar Tiwary, Suraj Samdarshi, Avinash Shekhar.

Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned ADJ 1st, Madhubani in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2016 and also for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 as the injunction granted in Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 vide order dated 22.11.2016 has been affirmed by the learned appellate court in its order dated 02.05.2023.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 filed for specific performance of contract. The original defendant Durga Lal Rai was the father of the petitioners who died during the pendency of the title suit. The plaintiff has made averment in his plaint that the original defendant was in need of money for treatment of his wife and thus entered into talk with the plaintiff for purchase of scheduled property of the plaint for consideration amount of Rs. 4 lakh. As the plaintiff was only having Rs.3 lakh at that time, the plaintiff apprised the original defendant that after making arrangement for Rs. 1 lakh, he would get the sale deed executed and regi

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