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

1977 Supreme(All) 649

H. N. AGARWAL
Genda Lal – Appellant
Versus
Ramadhar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Rudra Pratap Srivastava, Advocate, for the Applicant; M.C. Dewidi, Advocate, for the Opposite Party

JUDGMENT

H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri. S.M. Ibrahim, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, recommending that the revision against the order dated January 29, 1973 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalaun in suit No. 106 under Section 176, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, may be dismissed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have been represented through a counsel, but neither they nor their counsel appeared on the date the arguments were heard.

3. The facts may be briefly stated Ramadhar and Ram Gopal and filed a suit under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Genda Lal. The plaint bore the signature of Ram Gopal and the alleged thumb-impressions of Ramadhar. The defendant, Genda Lal moved an application before the trial court to the effect that plaintiff No. 1. Ramadhar was blind and that his thumb-impressions on the plaint as well as the Vakalatnama were forged and should be investigated by an expert. He prayed that the specimen thumb-impression of Ramadhar alongwith the thumb-impressions on the plaint and the Vakalatnama may be sent to the expert Ramadhar

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