✦ Bombay High Court · 10 Sep 2009

JUTENDRA v. DHARAMDAS MELUMAL RAMANI

Judgment

------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders. Shri the appellant. Shri H. Dangre, Advocate for R-1 & 2. Shri N. M. Sudame, Advocate for R-3. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 10/09/2009. Heard. This Court has already granted status quo. The contention is that the deceased father had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Respondent no.1, who on the basis of that document 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the present Respondent no.21. After 3 years of said transaction, the only son filed the suit challenging the said transaction contending that after the death of his father irrevocable power attorney could not have been used. In the circumstances, as the appeal is admitted, we continue the interim order. However, the appellant should file Private Paper Book by 31st December 2009 and appeal be listed for final hearing in the last week of January

#2010. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Application No. 7570 of 2008). ← Search more judgments