Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.43 seconds)

Sheela Rani And Ors. vs Manish Kumar on 1 August, 1996

7. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, the defendants/appellants have challenged the impugned decree and judgment on the grounds that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and without applying judicial mind passed the judgment/decree in the case. It has been further challenged on the ground that Manish Kumar/plaintiff expired in the course of proceedings and legal representative of deceased were taken on record by the Trial Court which were not mentioned in the title of cause so as to snatch legal rights of appellant for filing appeal as the appeal against deceased could not be file and summon of appellate court could not serve upon the deceased; the judgment and decree is bad in the eyes of law and without the facts and law; the Trial Court failed to determine that the suit is filed while concealing the facts, and suit was not maintainable; the citations quoted in judgment and decree do not relate to facts and law of the case of the plaintiff; the issues were not according to law; the Trial Court failed to decided that the suit was bad for misjoinder and non joinder of parties; the Ld. Trial Court failed to decide that the plaint had no cause of action and was liable to rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the case was filed at belated stage and without RCA No. 61309/16 Sheela Rani Vs. Manish Kumar Page No. 3 of 9 limitation; the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the case was filed to harass the appellants without demanding Possession of suit property by the plaintiff as he had already received the payment before executing the Sale Deed; the case law cited by the Trial Court was for possession and thus not sustainable as the suit was not for possession; the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the sale deed in any manner could not be executed without consideration; Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Sub-Registrar asked Sh. Manish Kumar for payment and Sh. Manish Kumar replied that he had already received Rs.70,000/- as full and final sale consideration and the Sub-Registrar after verifying from Manish Kumar Registered the sale deed; the Trial Court without applying judicial mind not given the opportunity to call further witnesses as per list of witnesses, so as to help the plaintiff and whole record of Trial Court itself shows opportunities were for plaintiff and not for defendants. Hence the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1