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

1996 Supreme(All) 369

A.P.SINGH
SUBEDEEN – Appellant
Versus
SATYAWATI DEVI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.SAXENA, M.A.KHAN, Ramraj,

A. P. SINGH, J.

Both these second appeals have been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure for questioning legality of the concurrent decree passed by IV Addl. Civil Judge, Lucknow dated 21-2-1990 in Suit No. 206 of 1982 and Suit No. 280 of 1983 which was confirmed by XV Addl. District Judge, Lucknow in Appeal Nos. 88 of 1991 and 95 of 1991 by judgment and decree dated 7-12-1991 decreeing the suits against appellants for eviction and payment of rent and for restraining the appellants from raising any structure over Plot No. 159, Mohalla Khas Bazar No. 3, Qaiserbagh, Lucknow.

2. Suit No. 206 of 1982 was filed by Satyawati Devi and Dharm Raj Singh against the appellants Sube Din, Bhikhan and Anwar whereas Suit No. 280 of 1983 was filed by Dharma Raj Singh against the three appellants. Suit No. 280 of 1983 was filed for claiming the relief of possession from the defendants over the land in suit and recovery of rent and damages. Suit No. 206 of 1982 was filed for injunction so as to prevent the appellants from raising any structure thereon. Since both the suits were between common parties and in respect of same land the trial Court heard and decided both the suits toget




























































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