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

2011 Supreme(P&H) 1914

A.N.JINDAL
Gurbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Narinder Kaur – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

A.N. JINDAL, J. - Gurbir Singh, the legal representative of Dalbir Singh and Satpal Singh, plaintiffs have alleged that plaintiff No.2 along with defendants No.3 to 7, are the owners in possession of the land measuring 61 kanals 3 marlas, as fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint and also sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents (herein referred as the defendants) from dispossessing them from the suit land. They also challenged the order of partition passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Batala dated 14.3.2006 passed under the orders of Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 20.10.2003.

2. The defendants contested the suit stating that there was no family partition earlier. Alleged memo of partition dated 22.1.1955 was neither executed nor acted upon. The same being illegal, ultra vires, null and void, is inoperative, ineffective qua their rights. No mutation was sanctioned on the basis of alleged memo of partition. Mutation No.1002 was sanctioned much prior to the memo of partition i.e. in the year 1954. After sanctioning the mutation, Avtar Singh sold 19 kanals 1 marlas of land during his life time in favour of Kulwant Sing












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