Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)

Suresh Kumar vs Veena 46 Wps/1504/2005 Lok Nath Yadav ... on 5 October, 2018

2. Joint Written Statement was filed on behalf of the defendant No. 1 to 3. Defendant No. 1 to 3 have pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the present suit and has suppressed the material facts from the court. During lifetime of the father of the parties, late Sh. Tejpal, an oral family settlement was arrived at in the family and as per the oral family settlement, plaintiff Sh. Suresh Kumar received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in lieu of his share in the suit property. Thereafter, remaining co- owners/legal heirs partitioned the suit property as per their respective shares with mutual consent. The defendants with their mutual consent demolished the old house constructed as it was in dilapidated condition and started constructing the new house on their respective shares. It is stated that the plaintiff has wrongly claimed demolishing old constructed house and raising new construction on the suit property. In fact, the plaintiff handed over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to other L.Rs/defendants while acting on the earlier family settlement arrived at between the parties in the presence of the deceased father. Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property and Civil Suit No. 8533/16 Suresh Kumar vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. 5/29 is not in possession of the suit property since the family settlement was arrived at between the parties. The defendants have denied and disputed the other contents of the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff has concocted fictitious story to defeat the lawful rights of the answering defendants.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - R Dubey - Full Document

Javer Chand And Others vs Pukhraj Surana on 25 April, 1961

20. No objection was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff as to the non stamping of Ex.DW1/3 and for non payment of sufficient stamp on Ex.DW1/1 when the same were admitted in evidence before the court. Both Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/3 were used by the plaintiff for cross-examination of the witnesses of the defendants. So, the document Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/3 cannot be questioned at this stage by the plaintiff on the ground of the said documents being not stamped/insufficiently stamped as per Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act (See Javer Chand and Ors. Vs. Pukhraj Sarna AIR 1961 SC 1655).
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 272 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1