VALMIKI J.MEHTA
Bhupinder Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Davinder Kaur – Respondent
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
C.M. No.33661/2017 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. No.33660/2017 (condonation of delay)
2. This application is allowed and the delay of 582 days is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RFA No. 788/2017 & C.M. No. 33659/2017 (stay)
3. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the preliminary decree dated 26.10.2015 and the final decree dated 28.9.2016 passed by the trial court. The effect of the two decrees is that the respondent no.1/plaintiff has been declared to be 1/4th owner of the suit property bearing No.F-2, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi and the appellants have been declared as 3/4th owners of the suit property. By the final decree dated 28.9.2016 it has been held that the property is incapable of partition, and therefore the same has to be sold and the monetary value of the share of each party as available from the net auction sale proceeds have to be given to the parties.
4. At the outset I put it to counsel for the appellants that one appeal does not lie against the preliminary decree as also the final decree, as these are separate decrees, and to whic
Mathai Mathai Vs. Joseph Mary Alias Marykkutty Joseph and Others
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.