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

S.SAMVATSAR
GHANSHYAM – Appellant
Versus
KANHIYALAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.R. Chandrawade, for the Appellant; B.I. Mehta for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Anand Pathak, Government Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

S. Samvatsar, J.

Petitioner by Shri R.R. Chandrawade, Advocate.

Respondents No. 1 to 3 by Shri B.I. Mehta, Advocate.

Respondent No. 4 by Shri Anand Pathak, Govt. Advocate.

Heard.

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 7-3-2006 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Appeal No. 22/2005, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the order dated 16-3-2005 passed by 7th Civil Judge Class-II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2005. Thus, two Courts have rejected the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC refusing to grant injunction.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 522/1, 967, 970/1, 966, 1145, 1152, 1418/1/99 total area 05.509 hectares situated at village Rau Tahsil and District Indore alleging that land in question is his ancestral property and he has 1/4th share in the property, therefore, the defendant No. 1 has no right to alienate the property. He along with plaint filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, which is rejected by two Courts below. H





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