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

2017 Supreme(MP) 565

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA
Ramcharan – Appellant
Versus
Damodar – Respondent


Advocates:
Vinod Kumar Dubey for appellant;
Devendra Shukla, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.4/State.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Satna in regular Civil Appeal No.31-A/2015, whereby the judgment and decree dated 8.7.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Satna, (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Civil Suit No.45-A/2010 has been affirmed and confirmed and the suit filed by the appellant for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rising to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff instituted a suit before trial Court, stating that the father of the plaintiff/appellant, Sahdev was the owner of the disputed land Khasra No.231/2 area 0.031 hect. situated in Village Kherbasani, Tahsil Maihar, District Satna. In his life time he remained in possession of the land and after his death plaintiff Ramcharan became owner and is in continuous possession of the land. This land has never been sold by Sahdev to Purushottam. The sale deed dated 5.4.1962 alleged to have been executed by Sahdev in favour of Purushottam is null and void as f
























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