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

2011 Supreme(P&H) 87

L.N.MITTAL
Devi Lal – Appellant
Versus
Shokaran – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. K. S. Yadav, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) :- Devi Lal-plaintiff who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited in the lower appellate court is in second appeal.

2. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 20 Kanals 2 Marlas and 10 Kanals 5 Marlas. The plaintiff never relinquished his rights in the suit land in favour of defendants or anybody else. But the defendants have obtained judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 from Sub-Judge First Class, Abohar in suit No.1015-1 dated 24.07.1993 titled as Sho Karan and another versus Devi Lal qua the suit land and got mutation No.927 sanctioned on the basis thereof without consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. In the instant suit, the plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid consent judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 and the consequent mutation No.927 alleging the same to be illegal and null and void. The plaintiff sought declaration that he continues to be owner in possession of the suit land. The judgment and decree in question are said to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and impersonation. Plaintiff herein (who was defendant in the previous suit) alleged that he never appeared










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