MUKTA GUPTA, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Suraj Munjal (Dr. ) – Appellant
Versus
Chandan Munjal – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
CM APPL. 12414/2022 (Addl. evidence)
1. Application under Order XL Rule 27 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC, 1908') filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff for leading additional evidence. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition, declaration, mesne profits, mandatory & permanent injunction against the respondents in respect of the properties mentioned in the suit. The appellant in his petition had taken a plea that he had paid 80.55% of the sale consideration and is entitled to a share to the said extent in the suit property. Moreover, there was an oral agreement by virtue of which respondent No.1 had agreed to execute a Relinquishment Deed in his favour making him an absolute owner of the suit property.
2. To support his assertions that he had paid approximately 80.55% the appellant wants to place the following documents on record:
(i) Loan Account Statement which reflects that on 9.7.2010 appellant and respondents No.1, 4 and 5 took a loan against property No.B-121, 12th Floor, DLF City, Regency Park, Phase-IV, Gurgaon for Rs.43,15,807/-.
3. On 05t
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.