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

2013 Supreme(All) 1704

SUDHIR AGARWAL
NAGENDRA PAL SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BHADRAPAL SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anil Sharma for the Appellant; Aditya Rana and S.N. Tripathi for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Anil Sharma, Advocate, for appellant and Sri S.N. Tripathi, Advocate, for respondents.

2. This is defendant’s appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. which has arisen from judgment and decree dated 11.7.2012 passed by Sri Razi Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor allowing plaintiff’s Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2009 and setting aside judgment and decree dated 3.10.2009 passed by Smt. Adesh Nain, Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor whereby she has dismissed the Original Suit No. 26 of 1998 but Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) has decreed the suit by setting aside decree of Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “TC”).

3. This Court formulated following three substantial questions of law on 7.8.2012 after hearing the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.:

(i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”)?

(ii) Whether the suit filed in the year 1998 for cancellation of the sale-deed executed in the year 1987 was barred by limitation in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act?

(iii) Whether the claim of







































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