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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1276

VIVEK AGARWAL
Babua Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Meena Yadav – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri Rajmani Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Counsel, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Petitioner / defendent No.1 challenging the order dated 29/10/2021 passed by learned IV Additional District Judge, Rewa in MCA No.28/2021 in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Court below has committed an error in accepting the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC and directing the defendant No.1 by way of temporary injunction that neither they shall cause any interference in the possession of the appellants therein i.e. plaintiffs nor shall cause any interference through anybody else.

2. The only issue involved in this Miscellaneous Appeal is that Chiddi author of the will executed the will on 27/08/2014 in favour of one Ramkalesh and Babua. Ramkalesh died on 30/01/2017 during the lifetime of Chiddi.

Thereafter, Chiddi executed the registered will only in favour of Babua. This registered will is the bone of contention.

3. However, it is an admitted fact and accepted by the learned 1st Appellate Court that Ramkalesh died on 30/01/2017 prior to death of Chiddi.

4. Thus, the issue which emerges for decision is whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in granting injunction and directing respondent Babua to hand over possess

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