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

2022 Supreme(MP) 171

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Chintamani – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
Avinash Zargar for applicants.

ORDER

1. No one appears for the respondents despite issuance of SPC.

2. The instant revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) assails the order dated 4.10.2017 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Sixth Civil Judge, Class-I, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.12-A/2015, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners/defendants has been rejected.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking relief(s) of declaration of title and permanent injunction. In para 2 of the plaint it has been pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs that the property detailed as Schedule ‘A’ was purchased by late Anokhilal (father of the respondents/plaintiffs and defendant No.2/petitioner No.2 and husband of defendant No.1/petitioner No.1) vide registered sale deed dated 20.10.1984 in the name of his wife (defendant No.1) out of love and affection but entire sale consideration was paid by late Anokhilal. Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed the right over the said property. Since the suit has been filed in respect of benami transaction, the same is admittedly barred by section 4 of

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