ANITA CHAUDHRY
Tejpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kushal Pal Singh – Respondent
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.
1. The appellants are the legal heirs of Daryao Singh. Daryao Singh had died during the pendency of his suit. His legal heirs, the appellants were impleaded as party. The pedigree table set out in the plaint would be necessary. It reads under:-
Chander Singh
Umrao Singh
Bhagwan Singh (died in 1974)
Raghu Nath Singh (Dft. No.7)
Harnath Singh (died in 1964)
Amar Singh @ Amir Singh (died on 12.1.92)
Daryao Singh (plaintiff)
Smt. Javtri Devi (deft. no.8)
Jaibir Singh (deft. No.5)
Kushal Pal Singh (deft. no.1)
Kuldeep Singh (deft. no.2)
Sandeep Kr. (deft. no.3)
Lalit Kumar (deft. no.4)
2. The property in dispute was owned by Amar Singh @ Amir Singh. He owned 162 Kanals of land situated within the revenue estate of village Mehchana, District Gurgaon. Amar Singh did not marry and died on 12.01.1992. The plaintiffs claimed that Amar Singh had left behind the plaintiffs and defendants no.7 & 8 as his legal heirs as the other two brothers namely Bhagwan Singh and Harnath had predecease
Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S.K. Mohammed & Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal and Mohamed Ali and Co.
K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors.
Soonda Ram & Anr. v. Rameshwaralal & Anr.
Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy & Ors.
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava
S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam & Ors.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham & Ors.
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.