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

2010 Supreme(P&H) 1639

RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Balwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurcharan Singh – Respondent


Judgment

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. Order dated 31.3.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

RSA No. 1097 of 2010 (O&M)

This is plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land, was dismissed. As per the averments, the appellant was in exclusive possession of the property in question being co-owner. The defendants are also co-owners in the suit property. However, they have no right to alienate the suit property more than their share but they have threatened to dispose of the suit property more than their share. Hence, the present suit.

2. Upon notice, the defendant-respondents filed written statement contesting the averments made in the plaint raising various legal objections. They further stated that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to disclose the factum of the pendency of an earlier suit titled as Amarjit Singh v. Gurcharan Singh etc. in which he was also a party and had filed written statement.

3. The property in question was given to defendants No.2 and 3 in family







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