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

1992 Supreme(MP) 107

R.C.LAHOTI
BADRILAL – Appellant
Versus
RAMPYARI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.CHITALE, S.D.SANGHI

R. C. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) ONE set of defendants, consisting of defendants Nos. 2 to 9, has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the two courts below, directing the suit filed by the plaintiff/ respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to be decreed in part granting a decree of declaration of title with respect to the part of the suit property, also declaring plaintiffs' entitlement to take water from the two wells proportionate with certain shares. The trial Court has held that the four plaintiffs with Mangilal, the defendant No. 1 are Bhumiswamis of the land described in para 12 (a) of the plaint, also entitled to have their names mutated in the revenue papers accordingly, that the plaintiffs are entitled to take water from the well S. No. 164 to the extent of 1/4th; that S. No. 443 area 3 acres 8 decimal had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs and Mangilal the defendant No. 1 and they were the Bhumiswamis entitled to have their name mutated in the revenue papers; that the plaintiffs were also entitled to take water from the well S. No. 419 to the extent of 3/8th. As to land S. No. 163 and S. No. 155/1968, the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking separate possession by partiti






































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