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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 1680

P.K.LOHRA
Kantilal – Appellant
Versus
Vidyadhar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitesh Mathur

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Lohra, J.

Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with section 104 CPC to assail order dated 21st of August 2017, passed by Addl. District Judge Bali, District Pali, rejecting their application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed and perpetual injunction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiffs filed aforesaid suit with the averments that first respondent, Vidyadhar, is real uncle of appellant Kantilal and brother-in-law of third appellant, Smt. Pyari Bai. It is also averred that Late Shri Ratan Lal was father of appellants Nos. 1, 2 & 4 to 7, and husband of third appellant-Smt. Pyari Bai. While referring to the first respondent, it is averred in the plaint that he is real brother of Late Ratan Lal having joint agricultural land in Khasra Nos. 24 & 25 ad-measuring 2.48 hectare situated at village Guda Jaitavtan, Tehsil Rani, District Pali and land ad-measuring 3.6 hectare of Khasra Nos. 336, 339, 340 and 380 at village Tokarla, Tehsil Rani, District Pali. It is also averred in the plaint that both the brothers entered into family settlement and it was dec









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