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

2021 Supreme(P&H) 718

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Rehra Ram – Appellant
Versus
Nitish – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this order, Regular Second Appeals No. 4060 of 2004, 4622 &3O18 and Civil Writ Petition No. 17617 of 2014 shall stand disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that all these three cases can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court has come to a conclusion that the dispute in Regular Second Appeal No. 4060 of 2004 is required to be remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh. Hence, the detailed facts which have already been noted by the Courts below are not being repeated. Suffice to note that the plaintiffs-Rehra Ram and Others filed a suit with the following prayer:

"30. It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as per their respective shares, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, situated in village Liwalwali, Tehsil & Disttt. Sirsa, and the entries in the revenue records showing the contrary to it are wrong and are liable to be corrected in the names of the plaintiffs as per their respective shares, and the transfers made by Shri Het Ram in favo

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