REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Omkar Prasad (Dead Through Lrs.) Appellant

V/S

Bhoodhar Prasad Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BHONDU GANPAT KIRAD AND ORS. V. RAMDAYAL GOVINDRAM KIRAD AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GURUDAYAL RAMPRASHAD KURMI AND ANR. V. SARJU [REFERRED TO]
HANUMAN NARAYAN AND ANR. V. TULSABAI NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA RAGHUNATHDASJI BHANGDE V. RAMGOPAL RAGHUNATHDASJI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM RAGHOJI V. MST. GANGI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN GOPAL V. GANGABAI W/O SADASHIV AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA DATT SINGH VS. GANGOTRI DATT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B N THIMMAJAMMA [REFERRED TO]
GUMMALAPURA TAGGINA MATADA KOTTURUSWAMI VS. SETRA VEERAWA [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. RATTNO DEAD [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT KAUR VS. AMRIT KAUR [REFERRED TO]
JANKI NARAYAN BHOIR VS. NARAYAN NANDEO KADAM [REFERRED TO]
GOSTHA BEHARI BERA VS. HARIDAS SAMANTA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGOBAI VS. BHAIYALAL [REFERRED TO]
NANDA KISHORE NAIK VS. SUKTI DIBYA [REFERRED TO]
JONNAGADLA SEETHAMMA VS. JONNAGADLA VEERANA CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
HAREKRISHNA DAS VS. JUJESTHI PANDA [REFERRED TO]
KELUNI DEI VS. JAGABANDHU NAIK [REFERRED TO]
ILLYAS VS. BADSHAH ALIAS KAMLA [REFERRED TO]
SM SABUJPARI VS. SATRUGHAN ISSER [REFERRED TO]
KALLIAN RAI VS. KASHI NATH [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANT AMARSINGH TELI VS. MANMATI [REFERRED TO]
PARAPPA ALIAS HANUMANTHAPPA AND ANR. VS. NAGAMMA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the Plaintiff's second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 11.3.1996 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bilaspur, Sakti, in Civil Appeal No. 26-A/94 arising out of judgment and decree dated 20.10.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 19-A/88 by the Civil Judge, Class-H, Sakti, District-Bilaspur (CG). The Plaintiff lost in both the Courts.

(2.) This appeal was admitted for hearing on 31.7.1996 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the execution and attestation of the will is proved by legal evidence and whether the findings recorded by the courts below that the will is genuine is perverse and contrary to record and is liable to be interfered with in this second appeal ? 3. The brief facts are that the suit lands described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint were the properties belonging to one Kunj Ram. The pedigree described in the plaint is as follows:

Click here to view full judgment.

OMKAR PRASAD Vs. BHOODHAR PRASAD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address