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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 609

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Sukhminder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Boota Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Appellant
Mr. P.S.Jammu and Mr. Karan Bansal, Advocates for the respondent No. 1 to 3.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the findings of facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court, which, in turn, has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. Jora Singh, Boota Singh and Chhota Singh filed a suit against the appellant, namely Sukhminder Singh and proforma respondent, namely Smt.Sukhi, who are the son and daughter of Devi Chand, for the grant of decree of declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner in possession of half share, whereas plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the owners in equal share of the remaining half share in the land measuring 24 kanals being 480/8234th share in the total land measuring 411 kanals and 14 marlas co

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