V.K.AGRAWAL
NIRMALA DHAR SINGH BAGHELA – Appellant
Versus
RANJIT SINGH AMAR SINGH DHUMAN – Respondent
V.K. Agrawal, J.
This revision is directed against the order dt. 11-11-1998 by IInd Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 133-A/1998, whereby the application (Annexure A-5) of respondents Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 under Order 1, Rule 1 read with Rule 10 and 13 of CPC for impleading them as party in the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, was allowed.
Undisputably, the plaintiffs/petitioners are the children of Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank. Brijlal Tank was also the son of said Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank and the brother of petitioners/plaintiffs. The property in dispute is Khasra No. 475/3 situate at Modhapara, Raipur. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit, (copy of plaint Annexure A-1) alleging that the property in dispute was purchased in two instalments by Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank in the name of his son Brijlal Tank. By the first sale deed dt. 18-6-1953, 6090 sq.ft. of land of said Khasra No. 475/3 was purchased, while subsequently on 5-10-1955 by another sale deed 2813 sq. ft. of land of same Khasra was purchased. Both the sale deeds were got executed by Jairam Bhijji Bhai Tank in favour of his son Brijlal Tank.
After the purchase as above of the said property, Jairam Bhijji
Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar
Panne Khushali and Another Vs. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.