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

2007 Supreme(MP) 681

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Ashok Kumar Gehani – Appellant
Versus
Ramhet Agrawal – Respondent


Advocates:
Ashok Aradhe for applicants; Vikram Singh for respondent No.1.

ORDER

1. This revision petition has been directed against the impugned order passed by learned trial Court, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC filed by petitioners/defendants.

2. Instant suit has been filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for declaration that the sale-deed dated 7.5.2004 which was registered on 21.5.2004, is null and void. The other relief which has been prayed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction that on suit property defendants may not raise any construction. According to the plaint averments, in the sale-deed dated 7/21 May, 2004, plaintiff is not a party. Shri Aradhe, learned senior counsel for petitioners/defendants also admits that plaintiff is not the party in the said sale-deed.

3. On going through the averments made in the plaint, it is gathered that the sale-deed was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2, but plaintiff is not the party in the said deed. Ramhet Agrawal who is plaintiff is also not deriving or claiming any right, title and interest from Bhagwandas Agrawal, defendant No. 3 who sold the property to defendants No.1 and 2. Thus, I am of the view that since plaintiff is not a party in the sale-deed a






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