Back
SAURABH LAVANIA
Ram Asrey – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proceeded to hear the case finally due to absence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenged orders from consolidation authorities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. objections and appeal history regarding joint property claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. petitioners maintained no partition occurred. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. burden of proof regarding claims of joint property. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 6. onus of proof and burden distribution in heritage claims. (Para 18) |
| 7. legal principles on inheritance and joint property. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. details of evidence and rebuttals regarding property claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. court dismissed the petition, affirming partition validity. (Para 31) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of private respondents to oppose this petition. The present petition is listed under the heading 'THESE CASES SHALL NOT BE ADJOURNED'. As such, this Court proceeded to hear the case finally.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.05.1973 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Dis
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
