Back
UDAY UMESH LALIT, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
Pyarelal – Appellant
Versus
Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania – Respondent
The Supreme Court considered the case of Pyarelal (appellant) in Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-1270 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21402-21403 of 2015, decided on 29 January 2019 by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.['2019 Supreme(SC) 342'] (!) (!) [1000632520001]
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals in the present case arise from two orders dated 13 November 2014 and 2 March 2015 of the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By an order dated 13 November 2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents. The challenge was to an order dated 26 August 2013 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant filed a petition for review before the High Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 2 March 2015.
3. The family tree of the appellant is depicted below:
Bholu (deceased)
Mangalram (deceased
Rukma devi (wife, deceased)
Bhagwan Singh (R3)
Kushi devi
Pradeep Kumar (R2)
Shubhendra (R1)
Pyarelal (Appellant)
Amrita (R7)
Shanti (R8)
Kamla (R9)
Santosh R10)
The Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respec
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. VS Mahaveer Lunia - 2025 6 Supreme 457: Shubhendra Pilania and Others, (2019) 3 SCC 692 - Treatment unclear. The description states "it was held that suits for declaration of khatedari ... respondents’ favour, it is submitted that once the sale deeds are validly executed and registered, the corresponding mutation is a natural." No keywords or phrases indicate judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled, reversed). The text appears to describe a holding and an argumentative submission, with no reference to subsequent decisions' treatment.
Ram VS 1st Addl,distt Judge - 2001 1 Supreme 706 - Treatment unclear. The entry states "A recorded tenure holder with prima facie title and in possession can file a suit in the civil Court for cancellation of a sale deed obtained on grounds of fraud or impersonation, without the need to approach the revenue Court for a declaration." No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment patterns. It presents a standalone legal principle without context on how it has been treated by later cases.
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
