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

2009 Supreme(MP) 1009

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Nathia Bai – Appellant
Versus
Gangaram – Respondent


Advocates:
Rajmani Bansal for appellants;
Shishir Saxena for respondents No.1 & 2.

JUDGMENT

1. This is defendants' second appeal against the impugned judgment dated 5.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Guna, in Civil Appeal No.14-A/1995, whereby the learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this second appeal, suffice it to say that Gangaram and Mohansingh are the plaintiffs and are the sons of Horal Singh. The plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint have pleaded that the suit property was owned by one Baldev Singh, who had died on 19.2.1973. On 11.2.1973 Baldev Singh executed a Will in favour of plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh by bequeathing his entire share in the disputed property. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh is the nephew of Baldev Singh. According to the plaintiffs, by executing the Will, Baldev Singh bequeathed the said property in favour of Mohan Singh. A probate proceeding is also pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna, in Case No.1/1975. In the suit property, Baldev Singh was having 1/3rd share and

















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