REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BHOJRAJ KRISHNARAO Appellant

V/S

DARSU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HIGHTON V. TREHERENE [REFERRED TO]
BABU GANESH V. SITARAM MARTAND [REFERRED TO]
KEDARNATH V. ZUMBERLAL [REFERRED TO]
JODHAN PERSHAD SINGH V. NANHKU PERSHAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KALI DAYAL BHATTACHARJEE V. NAGENDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
PADMARAJ FULCHAND V. MITSUI BUSHAN KESHA LTD. [REFERRED TO]
TIN TIN NYO V. MAUNG BA SAING [REFERRED TO]
CHOCKALINGAM CHETTY V. SINGARAM CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAYAN V. EAST INDIAN RAILWAY CO. [REFERRED TO]
CHOKALINGAM CHETTY V. SEETHAI ACHE [REFERRED TO]
ALABHAI VAJURBHAI V. BHURA BHAYA [REFERRED TO]
MITHOO LAL V. JAMNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA RAO V. TRIMBAK [REFERRED TO]
BISHNA V. SUCHA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KESHORAO V. YESHWANTRAO [REFERRED TO]
MD.TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN V. DY. COMMISSIONER,BARABANKI [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT V. SHRI MARUTI DEOSTHAN [REFERRED TO]
UNITED PROVINCES V. ATIQA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL V. FIRM HIRA LAL SHEO NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI RAM V. ABDUL AZIZ [REFERRED TO]
WAMANRAO V. RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL BOARD LUCKNOW V. KALI KRISHNA NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL CHOWLA V. JANDA RUBBER WORKS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
MANINDRA CHANDRA NANDI VS. BHAGABATI DEVI CHOWDURANI [REFERRED TO]
LAGUDUVA S KRISHNASWAMI IYER VS. SANKARAPPA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
DELHI COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS CO VS. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA MOHAN RAI CHOUDHURY VS. MOHENDRA NATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
SWAMINATHA ODAYAR VS. SGOPALASWAMI ODAYAR [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA RANJAN MAJUMDAR VS. MANIKGANJ LOAN OFFICE LTD [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPORE ZAMINDARY CO LTD VS. AMULYA NATH ROY CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
BHOLU KHEMA GUJAR VS. CHHAJJULALSA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal by two plaintiffs, Bhojraj and Narsingh Rao, who filed a suit against several defendants for the recovery of possession of -/-/6 share of the village of Ambhori, Tahsil Multai, along with sir fields and some khudkasht land, situate at Ambhori, and a house. The plaintiffs-appellants averred that they had pin-chased the suit property for Rs. 1,000/-from one Wamanrao, Brahmin, of bhainsdahi. They were ousted from possession by the defendants after getting a decree against them from the Court of the Civil Judge (Class II), Multai, under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. They, therefore, filed this suit for possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suit on the main ground that Mst. Radhabai, widow of Bapuji, had executed a perpetual lease in their favour and they had been in possession of the property since 1-11-1917.

(3.) THE trial Court granted a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiffs on condition of payment of Rs. 2,135/-by them to the defendants 9 to 14, The defendants 10 to 14 filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, betul, against the decision of the trial Court; the other affected defendants were impleaded as respondents. A sad (mistake was, however, made by the aforesaid defendant in not impleading Narsingh Rao, plaintiff, as a respondent in the first appeal. The defendants 10 to 14 then made an application to the lower appellate Court for joining Narsingh Rao as a respondent; but this application was made at a time when that appeal itself had become barred by time. Despite it, the lower appellate court allowed Narsing Rao to be joined as a respondent under Order 41, Rule 20, civil Procedure Code or under Section 151 of the Code, giving them benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

BHOJRAJ KRISHNARAO Vs. DARSU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address