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

2013 Supreme(MP) 175

Sujoy Paul
Rajesh Sahu – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath – Respondent


Advocates:
lh-vkj- jkseu ;kph dh vksj ls( fj’kHk xqIrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj lsA
C.R. Roman for petitioner; Rishabh Gupta for respondent.

ORDER

1. This petition is directed against the orders passed by the various forums under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 (MPLRC).

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :-

The petitioner filed an application under section 109/110 of MPLRC on 27.9.2005 before the Tahsildar. In the said application, it is stated that there is a will in favour of the petitioner by Kanhaiyalal, and therefore, on the basis of said will the revenue record be corrected. The parties were noticed and in turn the respondent entered appearance before the Tahsildar in the said proceeding. By filing Annexure P/3, an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is prayed by the respondent that said Kanhaiyalal never executed any will in favour of the petitioner. The will is a fake document and it does not contain thumb impression of deceased Kanhaiyalal. It is further stated in the said application that deceased Kanhaiyalal had an account in State Bank of Indore, Branch Sironj, wherein his thumb impressions are there. The copy of pass-book of said saving account was enclosed with the said application preferred under section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is prayed t










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