Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kishore – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of the suit property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the evidence of possession. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. analysis of trial court's findings and arguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. application of section 6 of specific relief act. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 20 , 21) |
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 revision petition arises out of the impugned judgment/decree dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by SCJ-CUM-RC (North East) Karkardooma Courts Complex, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No. 391/2016 titled Kamal Kishore v Balwinder Singh by which the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent Shri Kamal Kishore (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), has been decreed. The case of the Plaintiff is that he is the owner of the West part of property No. A-40 (part) Mansarovar Park, Shahdara, Delhi, (hereinafter "suit property") which was allegedly illegally broken into by the Defendant/Petitioner (hereinafter "Defendant") who was the owner of the
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
