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

2008 Supreme(MP) 320

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Smt. Kala Bai, Kamal jSingh, Chunnilal – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ajudhya Bai, Kaniram – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Divesh Jain, NIDHI VARMA,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by trial Court and the appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.

( 2. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this second appeal. Suffice it to say that three persons namely Chunnilal, Ramlal and Nanoolal filed suit against banshilal, Leelakishan, Ram Gopal and State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiffs prayed that in the suit property they are having right, title and interest and are possessing the suit property and defendants be restrained from interfering in their possession. It has also been prayed that the plaintiffs are having 1/5 share each in the suit property and accordingly, they are entitled to get their name mutated in the revenue record and the disputed land cannot be declared as surplus under M. P. Ceiling On Agricultural Holding act, 1960 (in short the Act) to the extent of plaintiffs share.

( 3. ) THE case of plaintiff, as borne out from their plaint and the evidence placed on record, is that Shivlal whose wife is Phula Bai was having three sons namely Leelakishan (defendant No. 2), dhanlal and Khushilal. Dha





















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