Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
, J
Ghasnin Bai – Appellant
Versus
Malej and Jageshwar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of plaintiffs' claims regarding title and relation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments over the significance and implications of statements made. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's discussion on evidence admissibility in mutation contexts. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. clarification on the nature of mutation proceedings regarding title. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal and decision. (Para 21 , 22) |
1. This second appeal has been taken up for final hearing through video conferencing.
2. This second appeal preferred by legal representatives of original defendant No.1 was admitted for hearing on 29.6.2010 by formulating the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the first appellate Court has committed an error of law by ignoring the material piece of evidence, i.e., the statement of plaintiff Malej before Tahsildar Kasdol vide Ex.D1 and has thereby recorded a perverse finding to the effect that Berson was not the son of Maidan Kanwar?"
[For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court].
3. Two plaintiffs - Malej and Jageshwar being s
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
