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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 9304

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Harikrishna Rao – Appellant
Versus
Babasav – Respondent


Advocates:
R.C.Bhargava,R.K.Sharma,H.K.Bhargava,

ORDER accordingly, respondents/plaintiffs were declared owners of 1/4th part of the disputed property whereas appellants were declared owners of 3/4th part of the property in dispute.

7. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, it appears that only appellants preferred an appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5A/2010, and by impugned judgment and decree dated 09/03/2010 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, appeal filed by appellants has been dismissed.

8. Before considering the facts of the case, this Court would like to consider as to whether a decree passed in a counterclaim is a separate judgment and decree requiring filing of separate appeal or not? This Court in the case of Baboolal vs. Kishanlal and Others decided on 18/06/2025 in Second Appeal No. 401/2006 (Gwalior Bench) has held as under: "10. The first question for consideration is as to whether a single appeal against common judgment and decree by which suit was dismissed and the counter-claim was allowed is maintainable or not?

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajni Rani And Another Vs.

Khairati Lal And Others reported in (2015) 2 SCC 682 has held as under

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