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

1997 Supreme(Del) 73

R.C.LAHOTI
S. SURJIT SINGH SAHNI – Appellant
Versus
BRIJ MOHAN KAUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.L.Anand, D.Khadaria, Harjinder Singh, Ravinder Sethi

R. C. Lahoti, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 26. 10. 95 passed by the trial court whereby their application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking framing of an additional issue has been rejected.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and issuance of permanent preventive injunction. The suit property is 33, Tagore Park, Delhi. One of the averments made in the plaint is that the property was acquired under a perpetual sub-lease deed got executed in favour of late Smt. Inder Kaur who died on 20. 8. 89. The entire transaction was carried out by plaintiff No. 1 as well as his father late Sardar Gian Singh Sahni in the name of late Smt. Inder Kaur (wife of late Sardar Gian Singh and mother of the plaintiffs) and thus it was a benami transaction within a Hindu Joint Family. Late Smt. Inder Kaur was only a benami holder of the demised plot on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 as well as on behalf of other co-parceners of the Joint Hindu Family including the plaintiffs and the defendants. Para 1 of the plaint alleges late S. Gian Singh having paid money from his S. B. A/c. to acquire the plo



















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