Smt. Panchobai v. Devprasad
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SLLAFMA
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. As per the records and judgments & decrees of both the Courts below, respondent No.1 herein was owner of the suit property and has received the same on .partition from his father, but after effecting partition in the year 1975, father of respondent No.1…
Judgment
1. Smt. Panchobai, W/o Dasharath, aged about 57 Jaitram, S/o Tulsiram, aged 2, '^y^ ^^^•^ rf^ abpiit 37 years, BothR/Q.VillageBhilailiazar, Katghora, District Korba (C.G) .. .. . . , : .VERSUS' RESP6NDENTS •
1. Devprasad ^ PLAINTIFF : « S/o. Shri Jamkram aged about 68 yeairs, R/&. Village Bhilaibazar, Katghora, District K^ ^^^^^^^^^ ; ^
2. Stateof ChUattisgarh, Througli DistricfMagistTateKorba, DistrictKorba(C.&) ^ ^ K "1^1 .it i MEMORAEOT3M- C^SEG0]^:..IAPRE^ iMDER SEGTION" 10{L€QDE^^;€B5^3^0C3EI^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR APPELLANTS/: (Defendant) RESPONDENTS/: (Plaintiff) Second Appeal No.9 of 2012
1. Smt. Panchobai
2. Jaitram Versus
Devprasad
State of Chhattisgarh {Second appeal under Section 1 00 Code of Civil Procedure 1908} Present: Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, counsel for the appellants. Mr. Tarakes^hwar Nande, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2, on advance copy. ; i -7'— Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J JUDGMENT (2-1-2013) 1. By tftis second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19Q8, the appellants have challenged legality and propriety of judgment & deffree dated 20-7-2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Katghora in Civil Apge'al No.lOA/2010, affirming judgment & decree dated 30-11-2009 passed by the Civil Judge Class-11, Katghora in Civil Suit No.34A/2007, whereby both the Courts below have decreed the suit for declaration and 1-
2. permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 herein/ plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel judgments and decrees and records of both the Courts below. for the parties present, perused both the
As per the records and judgments & decrees of both the Courts below, respondent No.1 herein was owner of the suit property and has received the same on .partition from his father, but after effecting partition in the year 1975, father of respondent No.1 has executed sale deed on 16-2-1976 in favour of appellant Panchobai. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, both the Courts below have held that father of respondent No.1 was not having any right or title over the property after partition of the suit interfere in the share of respondentNo.1. On property and he cannot examination of records, 1 do not find any illegality in aforesaid concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below and any substantial question of law for decision of this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed at the gdmission stage itself. NQ order as to costs. ^"—~~" ~| .: .sd/-..-' TP.SllaFma Judge Soma EaaBiS»S»Kt*»a 6o;!?Efa » > Biil
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.