IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI WAZIR & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
DEEPAK KHOSLA & ORS. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
1. The question with which this Court is confronted in the present judgment is whether the issues which were framed vide order dated 26.09.2011 covered the amended plaint or whether additional issues need to be framed, which if framed would require leading of additional evidence in respect thereof.
2. To find an answer to the above question, it is necessary to appreciate the background facts of the case.
3. The property bearing number 11, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi was owned by Late Sh. R.N. Khosla, who had two sons namely Sh. K.G. Khoslaand Sh. J.C. Khosla. The contesting parties in the present suit for partition are the heirs of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla. The plaintiffs are the three daughters of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla, whereas the Defendant No.1 is his son. When the suit was originally filed, it was filed by the Plaintiff No.1 as the sole plaintiff. Subsequently, the two other daughters of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla, who had been originally arrayed as Defendant Nos.4 and 5, were transposed as Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 vide order dated 18.04.2006. Defendants No.2 & 3 are the sons of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.4 (originally Defendant No.6) is the aforesaid Sh. J.C.
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by LRs vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors.
Swamy Atmananda & Ors. v. Sri RamakrishnaTapovanam & Ors
Kannan (Dead) By LRs & Ors. v. V.S. Pandurangam (Dead) By LRs & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.