Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Paritosh Chandiok – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Arora – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of the trial court's findings. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. outcome of the appeal by the respondent. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments from petitioner's counsel. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's observations on ownership and occupation charges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. discussion on determination of occupation charges. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 7. conclusion and directions to the trial court. (Para 13 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 18th March, 2017 passed by the court of Additional District Judge (Shahdara), Karkardooma in MCA 44/2016, whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant, challenging the order dated 30th January, 2016 passed by the Trial Court, has been allowed.
2. It is deemed appropriate to detail the facts preceding the filing of the/present petition. It is not disputed that the late mother of the petitioner/plaintiff was absolute owner of the freehold built up residential property bearing Plot No. 342, Gagan Vihar, Delhi-110051 measuring 130.35 square yards. In 2007, the mother of the petitioner/plaintiff sold the roof rights o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
