K.B.ASTHANA
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Gopi Nath Varman – Respondent
2. The disputed shop admittedly is a portion in the north west corner of the larger building of which the plaintiff-respondent is the owner. It appears that the plaintiff acquired the premises in the year 1956 by a gift from his father Raghunath. At that time the premises were kachcha covered by khaparail. The defendants' grand-father and grand uncle were the tenants in a portion of the said premises and in the north west corner thereof carried on a betel shop. Sometime in 1956 the premises being in a bad state of repairs fell down and the plaintiff re-constructed the premises as pucca. It further appears that when the premises fell down the betel shop carried on by the defendant's predecessor was shifted to a temporary gumati nearby and when the re-construction had sufficiently been completed the defendan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.