spot panchanama was at plot
no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them, the spot of incident was
plot no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them ... plot no.130, Swagat Nagar. Further,
Exh. 127 also shows plot no. 130, Swagat Nagar. Therefore,
merely because a wrong plot number is given
spot panchanama was at plot
no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them, the spot of incident was
plot no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them ... plot no.130, Swagat Nagar. Further,
Exh. 127 also shows plot no. 130, Swagat Nagar. Therefore,
merely because a wrong plot number is given
spot panchanama was at plot
no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them, the spot of incident was
plot no. 73, Swagat Nagar. According to them ... plot no.130, Swagat Nagar. Further,
Exh. 127 also shows plot no. 130, Swagat Nagar. Therefore,
merely because a wrong plot number is given
were the Ward and Street numbers given to plot (C), whereas the Ward and Street numbers given to plot (B) were 3912 ... itself that the parties intended to mortgage plot B, and that the wrong Ward and Street numbers were inserted in the Schedule by mutual mistake
same day, mutation entry numbers were given
to him. Complainant had wrongfully used his plots for industrial purpose and
hence 40 times fine
Survey No.1985 was abutting
the land old Survey No.1898. Plotting was done on the
consolidated land. The accused encroached upon the
informant ... plots were shown at distant places.
This has occurred because of the re-numbering of the plots.
He submitted that there is nothing wrong with
Survey No.1985 was abutting
the land old Survey No.1898. Plotting was done on the
consolidated land. The accused encroached upon the
informant ... plots were shown at distant places.
This has occurred because of the re-numbering of the plots.
He submitted that there is nothing wrong with
property by its Survey number, Hissa
number, C.T.S. number etc., as given in the Agreement, is
wrong. It is also not the case ... accused persons that the
boundaries of the plot of land in question has been wrongly
shown or described in the Agreement. Even in the Conveyance
agreement to sell a piece of land
from the said survey number admeasuring 33 feet X 60
feet for a consideration ... sale deed, inadvertently
the number of the plot was mentioned as 09 when, in
fact, it ought to have been number 08. So also
survey number originally belonged to the appellants and they claim its possession from the respondent No. 1, who according to them has wrongfully retained possession ... This Plot No. 1429 has been allotted to the respondent No. 2 Sarjerao. Since the respondent No. 1 has not handed over possession of
land
