P.L.BHARGAVA
Kishenlal – Appellant
Versus
Satya Prakash – Respondent
The plaintiffs case was that as the son of Mohan Lal he was entitled to a half share in the properties in dispute and he claimed partition of that share.
2. The defence was that the plaintiff was not the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that two of the village properties in dispute were the self-acquired properties of Panna Lal; that the families of Panna Lal and Mohan Lal had separated and there was no longer any joint family; and that the suit was barred by limitation.
3. The Courts below have held that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Mohan Lal; that none of the properties in dispute is the self-acquired property of Panna Lal; and that there was no separation between the branches of Panna Lal and Moh
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.