Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)

Prem Chand Jain vs State Of Raj & Ors on 4 March, 2011

15. In this case, it is admitted fact that the revisionist/defendant was inducted as tenant admittedly by Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, father of the present plaintiff/respondent. Sh. Jugminder Dass RCA No. 16/12 6 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain Jain executed two Wills dated 3.6.1991 and 29.7.1992 and two separate probate petitions were filed bearing no. 232/06 titled Prem Chand Jain Vs State and the other bearing no. 234/06 titled as Sukhbir Singh Jain vs State. Both these petitions were disposed of vide order dt. 12.5.2008 in view of the settlement reached between Sukhbir Singh Jain and Sh. Prem Chand Jain. In view of the settlement, the cases filed by them against each other were also withdrawn and according to that settlement the suit property in part of which revisionist is tenant fell to the share of plaintiff/respondent.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Sri Sukhbeer Singh Jain vs State Of U.P. on 31 August, 2010

15. In this case, it is admitted fact that the revisionist/defendant was inducted as tenant admittedly by Sh. Jugminder Dass Jain, father of the present plaintiff/respondent. Sh. Jugminder Dass RCA No. 16/12 6 of 8 Smt. Amrao Devi @ Umrao Devi Vs Late Prem Chand Jain Jain executed two Wills dated 3.6.1991 and 29.7.1992 and two separate probate petitions were filed bearing no. 232/06 titled Prem Chand Jain Vs State and the other bearing no. 234/06 titled as Sukhbir Singh Jain vs State. Both these petitions were disposed of vide order dt. 12.5.2008 in view of the settlement reached between Sukhbir Singh Jain and Sh. Prem Chand Jain. In view of the settlement, the cases filed by them against each other were also withdrawn and according to that settlement the suit property in part of which revisionist is tenant fell to the share of plaintiff/respondent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1