BELA M.TRIVEDI
Nath Rai – Appellant
Versus
Kalyan Sahai Dangachayach – Respondent
Bela M. Trivedi, J.— The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment & decree dated 19.8.1992 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘”the trial court”) in Civil Suit No.17/81, whereby the trial court has dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs seeking redemption of the mortgage in respect of the suit property.
2. The case of the appellants-plaintiffs in nutshell before the trial court was that the plaintiffs were the grandsons of Smt.Chandra Kunwar Devi who had expired on 13.11.1971, after executing the Will on 6.10.1971. By virtue of the said Will, the plaintiffs had become the owners of the properties belonging to the said Smt.Chandra Kunwar Devi, including the plot bearing No.D/54 Madhosingh Road, Bani Park, Jaipur. It was further case of the plaintiffs that the said Smt.Chandra Kunwar Devi was in need of money, and therefore had executed a document on 9.12.1966 in favour of the respondent/defendant, creating a mortgage by conditional sale in respect of half of the plot (southern portion) comprising 1250 square yards with cons
Raj Kishore (dead) by LR’s v. Prem Singh and Ors.
Uma Bai and Anr. v. Neelkanth Dhondiba Chavan (dead) by LR’s and Anr.
C. Cheriathan v. P. Narayanan Embranthiri
P.L. Bapuswami v. N. Pattay Gounder
Saroja v. Chinnusamy (dead) by LRs
Fida Hussain and Ors. v. Moradabad Development Authority and Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.