Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Mohd. Irfan Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Sarwar Ali Ansari – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the suit and identification of property. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellate court's confirmation of trial court's findings. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding injunction and property title. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. assessment of substantial questions of law versus fact. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. dismissal of the second appeal. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgement dated 16th August, 2021, by which the Appellate Court in RCA SCJ 13/18 titled Mohd. Irfan Ahmad v. Sarwar Ali Ansari, has dismissed the appeal challenging the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2018 passed by the Trial Court in Suit No.601518/2016 titled Mohd. Irfan Ahmed v. Sarvar Ali Ansari.
3. A suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff") in respect of the property bearing No.113A, Boundary Dargah, Adhchini Village, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter "suit property"). The case of the Plaintiff was that the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter "Defendant")
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
