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

2011 Supreme(Raj) 2087

A.M.SAPRE, C.M.TOTLA
Geeta Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bhanwar Lal – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants:N.M. Lodha, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V.K. Mathur, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard on the question of grant of stay applied by the appellant s ( writ petitioners).

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of any stay or/and ad-interim writ in favour of appellants in relation to the subject matter of properties during pendency of the appeal for more than one reason.

3. In the first place, the revenue suit out of which this writ appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) before the revenue court only for seeking a declaration of their share in the suit properties and the same having been granted to the plaintiff (respondents), there is nothing for this Court to stay in such matter. In other words, since the impugned decree, which is now subject matter of this litigation, is only a declaratory decree passed in favour of the plaintiff s and hence there is no question of staying such declaratory decree. It being a settled principal of law that declaratory decrees are not executable but they are in the nature of declaration only which declare the rights of the parties in the suit property, there arise no question of its e






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