Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.70 seconds)

Murlidhar (Died) vs Annu Pathan on 24 June, 2016

The plaintiff filed first regular civil appeal mainly on the ground that defendant had not entered into the witness box and plaintiff had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to bring certain documents on record, but the said application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed, and therefore, he could not bring on record the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.82-A/1998 between Radhamohan Vs. Murlidhar & Ors., so also the judgment and decree passed in first Civil Appeal No.6- A/1999 passed by the Court of 2nd ADJ (Fast Track Court) Datia and that has prejudiced his case. Learned First Appellate Court after giving careful consideration to the various pleadings dismissed the first appeal after recording a finding that plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden that his father had purchased the ruin situated behind the House No.20 Ward No.9, Datia, and that building permission was obtained in relation to the said ruin only. It has also recorded a finding that the said ruin is recorded in the name of the defendant in the records of Municipality. It is also mentioned that no evidence was led to prove the dimensions of the said ruin, nor any evidence was led to show that plaintiff had received the said ruin in family partition. Recording such a finding, the first appeal was dismissed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1