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

2010 Supreme(Raj) 96

VINEET KOTHARI
RAMESHWAR LAI – Appellant
Versus
RAMKUMAR – Respondent


Advocates: HEMANT CHOUDHARY, J.S.Bhaleria, RAMANDEEP SINGH,

KOTHARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been filed by the plaintiff-appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 9. 7. 2009 passed by learned ADJ,sangaria rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellants for seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C. P. C. The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that the sale deeds executed by the deceased Pyare Lal on 25. 2. 2009 in favour of Ram Kumar, father of respondent No. 1 Girdwari Devi and in favour of Girdawari Devi herself were illegal and they were required to be cancelled.

( 2 ) IN the said suit for cancellation of sale deeds, the plaintiffs, who are lineal descendants of brothers of deceased Pyare Lal claimed temporary injunction by the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE learned trial court has rejected the said T. I. Application by finding that prima facie no case was made out by the plaintiffs for grant of such T. I. on the ground that the said deceased Pyare Lal had executed a registered adoption deed adopting the said Ram Kumar dated 26. 9. 2008. The learned trial court has also noticed in para 8 that from the preamble of the sale deed dated 25. 2. 2009 in question it appears prima










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