Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Nagar Palika, Jind vs Jagat Singh, Advocate on 28 March, 1995
1. Whether the courts below have not gravely erred by treating
the copy of jamabandi and copy of mutation as documents of
title whereas the jamabandi and mutation are not documents
of title as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
titled as Nagar Palika Jind v. Jagat Singh (reported in 1995
(2) RRR, page 444 = 1995(3) PLR page 224?
Gurpreet Singh vs Chatur Bhuj Goel on 15 December, 1987
The above stated question has not been raised for the first time in the
present case. On a number of occasions, this question has been dealt with
by this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Chater
Bhuj Goel, AIR 1992 P&H 95 held as under:-
Nirmal Chandra Ray And Ors. vs Khandu Ghose And Ors. on 16 December, 1963
"11. Mr. Bindra has relied upon a decision of the Calcutta High
Court reported as Nirmal Chandra v. Khandu Ghose, AIR 1965
Cal 562, which, in our opinin is similar on facts to the present
one. In his case the minors filed a suit seeking a declaration that
an ex parte rent decree which had been obtained against them
was not binding on them as they had not been properly
represented in that rent matter. It was argued by the other side
that no prejudice had been caused to the minors as they had
been represented by their brother.
Raj Kumar And Others vs Rohtash And Others on 14 May, 2010
Recently, another
Single Judge of this Court in Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Rohtash & Ors., 2010(3)
CCC 566 (P&H) reiterated this view.
1