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

2016 Supreme(All) 648

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)
CHANDRIKA – Appellant
Versus
SHIVNATH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Santosh Kumar Mishra and Vinay Kumar Mishra for the Petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Civil Judge (J.D.) dated 13.10.2014, deciding issue relating to jurisdiction of Civil Court to try a suit for cancellation of sale-deed, in respect of agricultural land, in favour of the plaintiff and District Judge dated 13.3.2016, dismissing the revision of the petitioner against aforesaid order.

3. Shivnath (respondent-1) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 2694 of 1997) for cancellation of sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, allegedly executed by him in favour of Chandrika (the petitioner). It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendant-2 are real brothers and original resident of village Naktapar tappa Nagta Tikar, pargana Silhat, district Deoria, where they jointly owned plots 488, 487 and 494. For earning livelihood, the plaintiff used to resides mostly at village Mailani, district Lakhimpur Kheri. Defendant-1 got sale-deed dated 5.5.1997, executed through some imposter of the plaintiff and on its basis got his name mutated in revenue records also. Sale-deed neither bears the thumb impression of the plaintiff





















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