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

2010 Supreme(P&H) 176

SHAM SUNDER
Daya Ram – Appellant
Versus
Kanwar Pal – Respondent


Judgment

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.10.02, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamal, vide which, it missed the suits of the plaintiffs, and, the judgment and decree, dated 14.09.04, rendered by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal, vide which, it dismissed the appeals.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, Surji Devi (since deceased), was the exclusive owner of the property, in dispute. It was stated that Surji Devi, became widow, in her early age. She died issueless. It was further stated that she suffered a consent decree dated 15.01.86, in favour of the plaintiffs and Kanwar Pal, defendant Nos. 1, in respect of her entire property, but subsequently, she filed a Civil Suit, for setting aside of the same, in which, the parties arrived at a compromise, as a result whereof, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. It was further stated that Surji Devi (since deceased), again filed a Civil Suit, challenging the consent decree dated 15.01.86 on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, which was decreed, vide judgment dated 15.06.95, by the Court of the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Divi

























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