SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Raj) 2338

S.P.PATHAK
Savitri Prasad through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Madan Lal Googalia – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants:Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Reashm Bhargava, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal is of the year 2001 and has not yet been admitted. Learned counsel for both the parties requested the court to dispose of this appeal finally at this stage, therefore, in the interest of justice, I do not deem it proper to admit the appeal and on the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the matter has been taken up for final hearing.

2. The present civil second appeal under section 100 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 1st April, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Appeal No.44/1992 confirming the judgment and dcree dated 15th May, 1986 passed by the learned Munisff, First Class, Amer in Civil Suit No.277/1977 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for pre-emption was decreed but has been held to be dismissed under Order 20 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code.

3. Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for declaration and pre-emption of the disputed property, description of which has been given in para 1 of the plaint. The disputed house is situated in Mohalla Badi Basti, Pu































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top