AMIT BANSAL
Harjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Shankar Mukherjee – Respondent
JUDGMENT
amit Bansal, J. - I.a. No. 7603/2017 (u/O.VII R.11 CPC for rejection of counter claim) & CC No.79/2016
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the counter claim filed on behalf of the defendant.
2. The suit in question was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking relief of declaration, that the plaintiff be declared the absolute owner of B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (suit property).
3. In the said suit, the defendant filed a counter claim on 21st March, 2016 and prayed for the following reliefs:
'(a) allow the counter claim by passing a decree of declaration, by declaring the documents being GPa dated 09.08.1977, agreement to Sell, registered SPa, Will, Receipt, etc., dated 12.07.1985 in respect of Property No. B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, admeasuring 160 Sq. Yards, being forged and fabricated thus null, void and of no effect;
(b) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction by issuing directions to the Plaintiff to handover the Property No. B-399 Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, admeasuring 160 Sq. Yards, to the Defendant, upon term
D. Ramachandran vs. R.V. Janakiraman
Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.
Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede & Co.
ITC Ltd. vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I
Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs. Syed Jalal
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Charity Commr.
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.