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

2013 Supreme(P&H) 193

RAJIVE BHALLA, REKHA MITTAL
Bimal Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division Patiala – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants:Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - CM No.5346 of 2012

1. Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 18 days in refiling the appeal.

2. Allowed, as prayed.

CM No. 5347 of 2012

3. Prayer in this application is to condone delay of 06 days in filing the appeal.

4. Heard.

5. Delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2033 of 2012

6. The appellants pray that order dismissing their writ petition and orders passed by revenue officers entering a mutation, in favour of the private respondents may be set aside.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellants no.1 to 3 and their brother Chet Ram purchased 5/6th share, in equal shares from one Rikhi Ram, out of khasra no.45//2/1/2/1, vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.1973. Pyare Lal son of Mansa Ram purchased 1/6th share, i.e., 02 Marlas vide registered sale deed dated 20.11.1973. Chet Ram, brother of the appellants, passed away unmarried and issueless and therefore, his share was inherited by Murti Devi, their mother. The appellants constructed a house on the plot. Pyare Lal son of Mansa Ram sold more than his share to Ridhima Jain daughter of respondent no.3 and Monika Goel wife of Rajiv G






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