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

2003 Supreme(P&H) 1296

M.M.KUMAR
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
Parshottam Dass – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajneesh Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

M.M. Kumar, J. - This is plaintiffs petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenging order dated 25.7.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code during the pendency of appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1995 has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the instant petition are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against defendant-respondent 2 who is his brother and one Parshottam Dass restraining them from alienating half share of House No. 1504 situated in Gali No. 2, Nai Basti, Bhatinda. The claim of the plaintiff- petitioner was based on an alleged family settlement. It was further claimed that defendant-respondent 2 Dharam Paul who had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed house in favour of defendant-respondent 1 Parshottam Dass had no right to alienate half share which has vested in the plaintiff- appellant by virtue of the family settlement.

3. Plainti














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