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

1962 Supreme(Raj) 228

DAVE, CHHANGANI
Bachhraj – Appellant
Versus
Sumermal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Srikishanmal Lodha, for appellant; Hastimal, for respondents

Chhangani, J.—This is a defendants second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Pali, dated 31st March, l955. The plaintiff-respondents have also filed cross-objections. They initially came up before a Single Judge of this Court who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considered that an important point called for determination in the appeal, namely, whether under the facts and circumstances of this case the Patta Ex. P-1 was required to be registered under the provisions of the Marwar Patta Ordinance. He consequently referred this point to a larger Bench. The matter having come before a Division Bench of this Court it was ordered on 25th of August, 1961 that the whole case may be referred to the larger Bench. The Single Judge thereafter, on 18th November, 1961, referred the whole case to the Division Bench and this is how the matter has come before us.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated as follows— Achaldas, who is now dead and is represented by the respondents, his sons Sundermal, Vimalraj and grandson Ugamraj, the latter two minors, through their next friend Achaldas of village Khod, instituted a suit in the Court of


















































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