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

2019 Supreme(HP) 589

SANDEEP SHARMA
Rama Devi – Appellant
Versus
Dhruv Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Atul G. Sood, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Having regard to the nature of order this Court proposes to pass in the instant petition, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents, as it would unnecessarily burden them with the expenses of engaging services of a counsel to represent them in the instant proceedings.

2. Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record, are that the petitioner-plaintiff and respondents No.11 to 13 (hereinafter, 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') under S.26 CPC read with Ss. 34 and 38 of Specific Reliefs Act, praying therein for declaration that the plaintiffs are owner-in-possession of land denoted by Khata No. 69, Khatauni No. 116, Khasra Nos. 941, 942 and 943 Kita 3 area measuring 611-71 square metre situate at Chilgari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as per Jamabandi for the years 1999-2000 (hereinafter, 'suit land').

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Suit No.90/2004, suit having been filed by the plaintiffs came to be decreed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied wit

    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