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

2015 Supreme(Raj) 160

ATUL KUMAR JAIN
Lad Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
Ladu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
M.C. Jain, for Appellant;
Ramesh Kumawat, for Respondent.No.10

Hon'ble JAIN, J.—In this matter, Smt. Lad Kanwar and respondent No.10 Chhajuram are the only contesting parties. Names of respondents Nos. 1 to 9 were deleted at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. In this civil misc. appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 26.11.2014, which was passed in Civil Misc. File No.31/2014 relating to Civil Suit No.37/2014(505/2014) by Addl. District Judge No.9, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has dismissed the prayer for temporary injunction filed by Smt. Lad Kanwar against Ladu and others.

2. I have heard arguments of both the parties. It has been argued by the appellant that she was entitled to her share in the joint property of Hari Singh(father of Lad Kanwar), Jwala Singh and Nathu Singh, but Nathu Singh claiming to be the sole owner of the suit property had sold the suit property in the year 1967 to ancestors of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and then respondents Nos.1 to 4 further sold the suit property in the year 1999 on 21.8.1999 to ancestors of respondents Nos. 5 to 9 and then in the year 2012 on 23.7.2012 respondents Nos. 5 to 7 have further sold the suit property to respondent No.10. Sui

















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