Back
JASPREET SINGH
Rajeev – Appellant
Versus
Majeed – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
This is the defendant's second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.01.1981 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Kheri dismissing the defendant's first appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 320 of 1977 cancelling the sale deed dated 28th June, 1977.
2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court by means of order dated 04.02.1981 on the following substantial question of law which reads as under:-
3. In order to answer the aforesaid questions of law, it will be necessary to examine the case of the respective parties. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall refer to the parties as they were originally impleaded at the time of institution of the suit.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, certain brie
The court affirmed that previously established compromises governed property rights, and the misrepresentation of record by defendants did not substantiate their claims to a larger share than legally....
The court affirmed that the rights of co-tenants may be limited by previous compromises, reinforcing the principle that parties must substantiate claims against duly recorded documents.
The suit for cancellation of a sale-deed was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a Joint Hindu Family or that the propert....
A judgment obtained by fraud or collusion does not operate as res judicata and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings. Such a judgment can be avoided in subsequent proceedings by a party ab....
A compromise regarding property transfer is invalid if procured through fraud and lacks necessary documentation and registration.
The court ruled that claims of joint ownership must be substantiated with evidence, and the applicability of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars civil court jurisdiction in cons....
Orders and titles obtained through fraud are nullities; rightful ownership should not be barred by procedural delays attributable to such fraud.
Failure to challenge abatement order and lack of disclosure of right or title over the land in dispute led to the dismissal of the petition.
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
