REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

HARICHARAN RAI Appellant

V/S

DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ELIZA F.T.HIGG VATCHER V. HENRY PAUL [REFERRED TO]
HIP FOOG HONG V. H.NEOTIA AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA PRASAD V. PRABHULAL RAMRATAN [REFERRED TO]
DAMODHAR PRASAD V. RAM SARUP KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
BIHARI LAL MITTER V. TANUK LAL MANDER [REFERRED TO]
T.B.BARRET V. AFRICAN PRODUCTS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
NIRSAN SINGH V. KISHUNI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAIN V. PARSOTI PASBAN [REFERRED TO]
YESHWANT DEORAO VS. WALCHAND RAMCHAND [REFERRED TO]
MORAN MAR BASSELIOS CATHOLICOS REV FATHER K C THOMAS AND THERS VS. THUKALAN PAULO AVIRA:T P AVIRA [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH SINGH VS. KESRI MULL [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEO PRASAD VS. BHAGWAN HAJAM [REFERRED TO]
KUMBHAN LAKSHMANNA VS. TANGIRALA VENKATESWARLU [REFERRED TO]
MT LAGANMANI KUAR VS. RAM GOBINDA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BISESAR PATHAK VS. PHAGUNI MAHTON [REFERRED TO]
RAJWANT PRASAD PANDE VS. MAHANT RAM RATAN GIR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by defendant 1, which arises out of a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree, on the ground, of fraud, is from a judgment of reversal of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra, who reversed the judgment of the first court, and decreed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The facts are these: Defendant 1, the appellant as plaintiff brought a title suit, Title Suit No. 23 of 1952 in the court of the 3rd Munsif at Chapra against the plaintiffs respondents.

(3.) In that suit, the appellant claimed a declaration that the respondents' right to redeem the zerpeshgi which was the subject matter of that suit, had been extinguished, because of the expiry of the statutory period of 60 years, and therefore, he also asked for confirmation of his possession.

Click here to view full judgment.

HARICHARAN RAI Vs. DWARIKA PRASAD SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address