KHATIM REZA
Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Abhinu Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Rajdeo Yadav – Respondent
Khatim Reza, J. – Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel representing the appellants, assisted by Mr. Lal Babu Singh, and Mr. J. S. Arora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.05.2009, passed in Title Appeal No. 82 of 1991 by the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah, whereby the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.07.1991, rendered in Title Suit No. 80 of 1985 by the learned First Additional Munsif, Bettiah, in which the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants was partially decreed.
3. In order to gauge the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate what the suit entails. The plaintiffs-appellants filed Title Suit No. 80 of 1985 for declaring the registered mortgage by conditional sale dated 15.04.1980 to be a mortgage and further sought a direction commanding defendant/respondent no. 1 to accept the mortgage amount of Rs. 4,000/- within a fixed time frame, execute a deed of reconveyance (wapsinama) and deliver possession of the mortgaged proper
Vithal Tukaram Kadam vs. Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale
Bibi Fatima vs. M. Ahmad Hussain
Ganpati Babji Alamwar vs. Digambarrao Venkatrao Bhadke
Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate vs. Nana Dinkar Yadav (Tanpura)
Srinivasaiah vs. H.R. Channabasappa
B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka
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.