Back
SIDDHARTH
Rajeev Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Prashant Garg – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Krishna Mohan Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent no. 1 and perused the lower court record.
2. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants against the judgement and decree dated 04.03.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015 (Prashant Garg Vs. Rajeev Gupta and others) arising out of judgement and decree dated 25.02.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Original Suit No. 117 of 2003 praying for cancellation of sale deeds dated 16.06.1992 and 29.06.1992 executed in favour of the defendant nos. 2 to 4/appellants by Ramesh Chand Garg (brother of plaintiff no. 1) and also for delivery of possession of property in dispute.
3. The plaintiffs instituted an Original Suit No. 117 of 2003. The plaintiffs’ case is that Dr. Babu Ram Garg was the owner of House No. 49B, Vakil Road, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, measuring 960 sq. yards. He acquired other properties also during his lifetime. He had three sons, namely, Ishwar Chand Garg, Ramesh Chand Garg and Dr.
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "overruled," "disapproved," or similar language that typically signal negative treatment or invalidation. Therefore, based on the information available, no cases are identified as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly indicated as followed or affirmed in subsequent rulings.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
Thayyullathil Kunhikannan VS Thayyullathil Kalliani - 1989 0 Supreme(Ker) 368: Discusses the legal validity of family arrangements entered into under misapprehensions, emphasizing that such arrangements are supported if fair and equitable. The language suggests it established a legal principle rather than being overruled.
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS. ) VS PURUSHOTTAM - 2020 8 Supreme 444: Clarifies the burden of proof regarding joint property in HUF and estoppel from benefits accepted, implying it states a settled legal position.
[Legal Principles / Precedents]
VIDUR IMPEX AND TRADERS PVT. LTD. VS TOSH APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. - 2012 5 Supreme 557: Clarifies applicability of Order I Rule 10(2), CPC, and the concept of comity of courts.
HAMMED VS KANHAIYA - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 1233: Addresses admissibility of certified copies of wills and maintainability of suits for cancellation of sale deeds.
M. B. RAMESH (D) VS K. M. VEERAJE URS (D) - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 437: States that construction of documents raising legal questions necessarily involves law.
Benga Behera VS Braja Kishore Nanda - 2007 0 Supreme(SC) 751: Explains the burden of proof regarding the execution of a will, emphasizing suspicious circumstances.
Sunil Gupta VS Kiran Girhotra - 2007 7 Supreme 423: Discusses procedural aspects of probate proceedings and parties' rights.
Prem Singh VS Birbal - 2006 4 Supreme 69: Clarifies scope of Limitation Act regarding coercion, undue influence, and related issues.
Sneh Gupta VS Devi Sarup - 2009 2 Supreme 77: Explains legal protections under the Equality Act 2010 and burden of proof shifting.
SOPANRAO VS SYED MEHMOOD - 2019 6 Supreme 206: Addresses relief granted in suits for possession based on title, and the proof required.
J. Yashoda VS K. Shobha Rani - 2007 5 Supreme 293: Reiterates legal principles regarding discrimination protections and burden shifting.
[Legal Concepts / Specific Legal Points]
Jami Appanna VS Jami Venkatappadu - 1952 0 Supreme(Mad) 340: Suit to set aside void documents.
Arya Printinidhi Sabha, Punjab Jullundur VS Dev Raj Vir Bhan - 1962 0 Supreme(P&H) 120: Admissibility of certified copies of registered wills.
: Family arrangements and their legal support.
SOPANRAO VS SYED MEHMOOD - 2019 6 Supreme 206: Relief in possession suits.
J. Yashoda VS K. Shobha Rani - 2007 5 Supreme 293: Discrimination law and proof.
All cases appear to be statements of legal principles or procedural clarifications without explicit indication of subsequent negative treatment or overruling. Therefore, their treatment status remains unconfirmed and appears to be consistent with valid legal principles at the time of their pronouncement.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
