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

2003 Supreme(P&H) 724

VINEY MITTAL
Hari Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gurucharan Singh – Respondent


Judgment

1. Hari Singh plaintiff-appellant having remained unsuccessful concurrently in the two courts below has filed the present regular second appeal.

2. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 4/02/1987 in the suit Jagjit Singh and another V/s. Inder Singh was null and void, ineffective and not binding upon his rights. The plaintiff claimed that Inder Singh had two sons, Hari Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The land in dispute was ancestral in the hands of Inder Singh. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that the parties were governed by the customary law wherein the ancestral property could not be alienated by the holder and, therefore, the judgment and decree dated 4/02/1987 suffered by said Inder Singh in favour of Jagjit Singh and Karnail Singh were null and void, illegal and not binding upon his rights.

3. According to the plaintiff the said land could not be transferred by Inder Singh except for a legal necessity.

4. The defendants put in appearance and filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. They supported the decree dated 4/02/1987 as legal and valid. It was specifically pleaded b

























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