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

2017 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
PUSHPINDER KAUR SODHI – Appellant
Versus
AMANDEEP KAUR AND ANR. – Respondent


RSA No. 1193 of 2017 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 1193 of 2017 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 2.3.2017

Pushpinder Kaur Sodhi

.....Appellant

Vs.

Amandeep Kaur and another

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present :

Mr. Kawaljyot Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

****

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgments and decrees

passed by the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the

plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned trial court and first appeal of the

defendants was also party accepted by the learned first appellate court,

defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of present regular second

appeal.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by learned trial court in para 2

of its impugned judgment, are that house in question fell to the share of

Kuljit Singh, father of plaintiff, in a partition between brothers which was

held on 4.3.1992 and was recognised in a decree passed by the court of Sub

Judge 3rd Class, Patiala, in Suit No. 264 dated 27.7.1991 decided on 7.4.1992

Amit Kumar

2017.03.16 17:39

I attest to the accuracy and

in

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