ANAND PATHAK
Sarita Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. With consent, heard finally.
The instant first appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred at the instance of appellant (hereinafter referred as “plaintiff”) being crestfallen by the judgment and decree dated 25-11-2002 passed by VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Gwalior, whereby suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents (hereinafter referred as “defendants”) for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit property situate at Municipal Corporation bearing Nos. 32/752, 32/752/1 and 35/752/2. As per the pleadings, plaintiff purchased the first plot vide registered sale deed dated 3-10-1981 from Smt. Anuradha Pathak and Smt. Minakshi Sharma, second plot vide registered sale deed dated 12-4-1982 from Smt. Minakshi Sharma and third plot vide registered sale deed dated 12-11-1987 from Brij Kishore. At the time of purchase, they were the owners of the disputed suit property and their names were mentioned in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior as owners. It is further submitted that found
Haryana Waqf Board vs. Shanti Sarup and other
Prembai and others vs. Ghanshyam and others
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others
Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha
Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another
N. Kamalam (Dead) and another vs. Ayyasamy and another
State of Gujarat vs. Mahendra Kumar Parshottambhai
Privy Council Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh vs. Gurdial Singh 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.