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

1980 Supreme(P&H) 155

RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, G.C.MITTAL, S.S.SANDHAWALIA
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Amar Singh – Respondent


JudgmentJudgment

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether sub-rule (c) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies mutatis mutandis to the memoranda of appeals by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Code, is the meaningful question which in essence has necessitated this reference to a Full Bench.

2. It is manifest that the issue aforesaid is pristinely legal and any detailed reference to the facts, therefore, would be hardly relevant the more so in view of the fact that we are inclined only to decide the question of law leaving the determination on merits to the learned single Judge. If, therefore, suffices to notice that the suit preferred by the plaintiff-appellants was a usual declaratory one claiming that the sale of agricultural land specified therein by a registered deed was without necessity and consideration and therefore, not binding upon the plaintiffs and consequently not affecting their proprietary rights. The trial Court dismissed the suit on January 28, 1978. The appeal against the same was instituted on April 18, 1978, and relying on certain amendments made by the State of Haryana in the Court-fees Act the respondents took up







































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