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

1999 Supreme(HP) 106

KAMLESH SHARMA
NATHU RAM – Appellant
Versus
ATAM PARKASH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. is being disposed of at the admission stage after giving full hearing to the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record, as on the basis of substantial question of law as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below do not deserve to be interfered with.

2. The appellant and pro forma respondent No.3 in this appeal were the defendants, whereas, respondents No.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs in the Civil Suit out of which the present appeal has arisen. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for recovery of suit property along with house built over it comprising of Khasra No.123 measuring 4 biswas, situated in Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu by Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu exercising the powers of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kullu on 27.8.1997. The appeal filed by appellant-defendant Nathu Ram against the decree and judgment of the trial Court was also dismissed by the District Judge, Kullu on 30.5.1998. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

3. It is not in dispute that in Jamabandis Ex. PB for the












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