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

1995 Supreme(P&H) 932

N.K.KAPOOR
Baru – Appellant
Versus
Ratia – Respondent


Judgment

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is defendants regular second appeal.

2. Plaintiff and defendant are the sons of Kehru from two different wives. The name of the mother of plaintiff is Muthari whereas the name of mother of Baru is Dakhan. After the death of Kehru, Muthari performed Kareva marriage with Sheo Chand who was owner of 1/6th share in the land measuring 459 kanals 16 marlas. This share was inherited by Smt. Muthari and so she became owner of the land. She died in August, 1969. It so happened that the mutation was sanctioned in the name of the plaintiff and defendant in equal share. It is with a view to correct this error which crept in the register of mutation that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession claiming himself to be the full owner of the property left by Smt. Muthari, her mother.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to him, Sheo Chand had a daughter named Dhampa. According to the defendant, on the death of Muthani, the whole of the property owned by her through her husband Sheo Chand had gone to Smt. Dhampa as she was the only heirs of Sheo Chand. It is further the case of the defendant that in a family settlement Smt. Dhampa had given the suit
















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