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

1978 Supreme(All) 511

S.J.HYDER
Nirmal Chand – Appellant
Versus
Gaya Prasad Dikshit – Respondent


Advocates:
Radha Krishna and P. Krishna, for Appellant, B. Dikshit, for Respondents.

JUDGEMENT :- The only question which calls for determination in this second appeal is one of limitation. The relevant facts in the context of which this question requires to be answered, have been finally determined by the final court of facts. The said facts could not be and have not been rightly disputed before me.

2. Shortly stated the dispute between the parties relates to a small portion of a house. This house originally belonged to one Dr. Rama Shankar. Defendantrespondent No. 1 Gaya Prasad Dixit, hereinafter be referred to as Dixit, is the grandson of the real sister of Behari Lal, Dr. Rama Shanker is the son of Behari Lal. Dixit was living in the disputed portion of the house, which consists of a room, a kitchen, a verandah and a Kothari. Some dispute arose between Dr Rama Shanker on the one hand and Dixit on the other, whereupon Dr. Rama Shanker filed original suit 521 of 1957 for possession over the disputed portion of the house. This suit was compromised and in terms of the said compromise a decree was passed. It provided that Dixit shall remain in occupation of the disputed portion of the house as a licensee of Dr. Rama Shanker, Some time in 1959 Dixit gave a notice to D






























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