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

2011 Supreme(P&H) 1144

L.N.MITTAL
Lichhami Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bharpai – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the appellants.

JUDGMENT

L. N.MITTAL, J. (Oral) - C. M. No. 5746-C of 2011 :

It is stated that Annexures A-2 to A-7 are part of the lower court record, but Annexure A-1 is not part of evidence. Accordingly, prayer for placing on record Annexure A-1 is declined. Annexures A-2 to A-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Main Appeal:

Plaintiffs, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal.

2. Plaintiffs in the suit challenged consent decree dated 29.10.1992 suffered by one Fatta in favour of Zile Singh and Sat Narain (defendants no.1 and 2 herein) and sought consequential relief. Nanhu had three sons i.e. Fatta, Manphool and Moti Ram. Manphool died in the year 1970 or prior to it. His inheritance mutation was sanctioned on 13.08.1970 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 herein, who are his sons. Fatta died in the year 1996. Moti Ram died in the year 2001. Moti Ram's son Ram Diya pre-deceased him in the year 1997. Plaintiffs are legal heirs of said Ram Diya being his widow, two minor daughters and a minor son. The plaintiffs alleged that transfer of one-third share of Fatta in the suit land in favou









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