M.Jeyapaul
Harbir – Appellant
Versus
Bhabhuti – Respondent
Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.:- The unsuccessful defendants who suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction at the hands of both the Courts below have preferred the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiff has contended in the plaint that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land described in the plaint. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The defendants filed a Suit No.653 against the plaintiff with a view to grab the suit land from the plaintiff. On 20.9.1994, the defendants made illegal and unauthorized compromise playing fraud upon him and obtained 6 kanals 8 marlas of land comprised in Rect.No.31 killa No.12 and in lieu thereof defendants had given 1 kanal 12 marlas of land comprised in Rect.No.33 killa No.14. The plaintiff has suffered a loss in respect of land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas. The plaintiff was an illiterate person. He had no knowledge of the terms and conditions of the compromise. The same was never read over and explained to him. The defendants obtained the signatures/thumb marks of the plaintiff on blank papers with an assurance that he would be given equivalent land to that of defendants. In this manne
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.