Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Satyen Vaidya, J
Mast Ram v. Kewal Krishan Kumar
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial emphasis on proper jurisdiction and evidential consideration. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 22) |
| 2. ownership and possession disputes evaluated through revenue records. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 18) |
| 3. rejection of additional evidence can adversely affect judicial outcomes. (Para 3 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 22.01.2014, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 33 - XIII - 12RBT 8/13/12 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. II, Amb, District Una, in Civil Suit No. 162/2007, was affirmed.
2. Appellants were defendants before the learned trial Court and the respondents were plaintiffs. The parties hereafter shall be referred to by the same status as they held before learned trial Court.
3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of land measuring 01-89-21 hectares, comprised in Khewat No. 371 min, Khatauni No. 861 min, Khasra Nos. 4197, 4202, 4204 and 4205 as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05 situated in Up -
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
