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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 688

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Amita Devi – Appellant
Versus
Sankta Parsad Tiwari – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate & Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate Mr. Shubham Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below are challenged in this appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff’s suit for grant of decree of possession of the plot has been decreed. While filing the suit, the plaintiff claimed the possession of the plot with the following demarcation and description of the property with reference to the property of owners located on four directions:-

“East:

Gali 18’ wide

side 37’- 6”

West:

Land of others,

now house of Sanjeev

 

North:

Gali Sare Aam 16’ wide

side 30’- 0”

South:

Land of Indraj Singh Singh etc

now house of Bijender

 

side 30’- 0”

2. The plaintiff claims that he has purchased 125 square yards of land from Indraj Singh son of Sh. Pirthi Singh, who was admittedly the owner of the property. The defendant contested the suit while stating that the same Sh. Indraj Singh had sold the property measuring 130 square yards in favour of Smt. Bala Rani vide sale deed dated 03.12.1999. Thereafter, the aforesaid Smt. Ba

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