REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

V.Maheswari Appellant

V/S

S. Bhaskarachari Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

T.CHINA PANDURANGA RAO AND ANOTHER VS. B.VENKATAPPAIAH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PERRY KANSAGRA VS. SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. VS. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI NARAIN VS. BABURAM [REFERRED TO]
GULAM ABBAS VS. MULLA ABDUL KADAR [REFERRED TO]
SOW CHANDRA KANTE VS. SHEIKH HABIT [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH SEKHON VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR VS. RAMBHAI [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET INDIA VS. NETAJI CRICKET CLUB [REFERRED TO]
PREM SAGAR GUPTA VS. KAMLESH KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
I NOOKALAMMA VS. I SIMHACHALAM [REFERRED TO]
NALAJALA NARASAYYA VS. NALAJALA SITAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SYED AFZAL VS. SYED HAMZA [REFERRED TO]
BODA PRASAD VS. KARLAPUDI VENKATESHWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT KAUR VS. DEVINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of C.P.C. with a prayer to review the order, dtd. 12/3/2024, passed in C.R.P.No.2734 of 2022.

(2.) The facts which lead to filing of the review petition are breifly as follows:

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the suit is filed seeking the relief of partition deed, dtd. 28/2/2002, as null and void and also for partition of the plaint schedule property and allot 1/4th share in them to the plaintiffs, whereas the main plea of the defendants is that there was already division of the plaint schedule properties and therefore, the plaintiffs contended that the burden of proof of partition pleaded by the defendants is on them and consequently, the plaintiffs reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence on those issues.

Click here to view full judgment.

V.MAHESWARI Vs. S. BHASKARACHARI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address