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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 499

ALKA SARIN
Dharu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Ladha Ram – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the defendantappellant against the concurrent findings of both Courts below decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 averring therein that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the defendants were originally residents of Tehsil Dera Gazi Khan, which now forms a part of Pakistan, and that they migrated to India in 1947. It is the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that Topan Ram predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had mortgaged with possession the land measuring 46 Kanals and 8 Marlas being 5/8th share in Village Yaru, Tehsil Dera Gazi Khan with Khota Ram father of Ladha Ram, plaintiff-respondent No.1, for a sum of Rs.2700/- by way of registered mortgage deed dated 03.07.1920. It is further the case that land measuring 25 kanals 15 marlas bearing Killa Nos.22/2 and 23 of Rect. No.107 and Killa Nos.3 and 8 of Rect. No.110 situated in Village Likhi, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad was allotted to Topan Ram and his successors-in-

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        Judicial Analysis

        None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided summaries do not contain language suggesting negative treatment or judicial disapproval. Therefore, based solely on the information given, there are no cases identified as bad law.

        Followed / Affirmed:

        None explicitly indicated. The summaries do not mention subsequent cases following or affirming these rulings.

        Distinguished / Clarified:

        Singh Ram (D) Thr. L. Rs. VS Sheo Ram - 2014 5 Supreme 749: The case discusses the rights of usufructuary mortgagors regarding possession and limitation period, emphasizing specific conditions. No indication of it being distinguished or clarified in later rulings.

        Ram Kishan And Ors. VS Sheo Ram - 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 2160: The case explains the rights to redemption and the effect of subsequent contracts, without mention of it being distinguished or clarified later.

        Legal Principles / Precedent:

        Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L. Rs. VS Chandrika - 2016 4 Supreme 524: This case elaborates on the interpretation of statutes, the applicability of CPC versus specific laws, and the procedural nuances in High Court sittings. It appears to serve as a legal principle or interpretative guidance rather than a case that has been overruled or reversed.

        All three cases lack explicit treatment indicators such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "questioned." Their descriptions do not suggest any controversy or negative judicial treatment. Without additional context, their treatment status remains uncertain, but based on the current information, they are best categorized as unchallenged or not explicitly overruled.

        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