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

1991 Supreme(Del) 316

USHA MEHRA, S.B.WAD
INDERPAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
INDER KAUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.SINGH, A.S.GAMBHIR, D.S.Narula, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, N.L.Anand, R.B.DATAR, VIPIN SANGHI

Usha Mehra

( 1 ) THESE two appeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated 4th March, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suits No. 16 and 17 of 1984. Regular First Appeal No. 165/85 has been filed by the legal heirs of Late Shri Harnam Singh, (plaintiffs before the trial Court) because their suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Regular First Appeal No. 164/85 has been filed by them because of the judgment and decree having been passed in favour of respondent no I in her suit for possession and injunction. The question which this Court is called upon to determine is whether any right accrued to plaintiff in the property in dispute on account of codicile and what is the effect of their withdrawal of the suit without permission. So far as R. F. A. No. 164/85 is concerned, we have to consider whether the Court was justified in decreeing the suit of respondent no. I without recalling the order of consigning the suit to record after staying the suit sine die.

( 2 ) SHRI Hardit Singh Multani was the original owner of property beaming No. XVI/10204 known as (Anand Bhavan), Gurdawara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He died on








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