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

2004 Supreme(All) 2165

N.K.MEHROTRA
Harnam Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Appellant : K. C. Tripathi.
Counsel for the Respondents: None.

JUDGMENT

N. K. Mehrotra, J.—This is second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by IVth Addition District Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 60 of 1981 filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.2.1981, passed by IVth Addl. Munsif in Suit No. 171 (W) of 1980.

2. I have heard Shri K. C. Tripathi for the appellants. Nobody appeared from the side of the respondents to argue the appeal.

Case of the plaintiffs-respondents :

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the members of Joint Hindu Family and they owned their house as Joint Hindu Family property detailed in Schedule ‘Aa’ of the plaint. The item No. 3 of the Schedule of the plaint was sold by the plaintiffs jointly 15 years back. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 Ram Kumar started living in another house which was purchased by him exclusively. Plaintiff No. 2 Ram Ratan started living in the house shown at item No. 1 of the Schedule ‘Aa’ along with his mother and Satish Chandra the son of the plaintiff No. 1. From the life time of their parents, the plaintiff No. 2 has been a person of sub-normal mind and he had always been under the influence of other persons. The defend



























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