Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LEKHAMAN YADAV versus VTH. A.D.J., & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lekhaman Yadav v. Vth. A.D.J., & Others - WRIT - C No. 49138 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 249 (4 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the orders dated 4.3.1994 and 1.10.1999, Annexures-4 and 5 respectively to the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is that one Sunesari widow of Mangal Deo Upadhyay has filed Suit No. 735 of 1990 for cancellation of sale deed dated 29.6.88 executed by defendant no.2 Paras Nath Upadhaya in favour of the petitioner. During pendency of the suit plaintiff no.1 died on 20.9.93. An application was filed by plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 who are daughters of plaintiff no.1 stating therein that as the plaintiff no.1 has already died and the plaintiffs no.2 and 3 are the only heirs of plaintiff no.1, therefore, name of plaintiff no.1 be deleted. The said application has been allowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision, which was numbered as Revision No. 57/94. The Revisional Court has also recorded a finding that allowing the application filed by plaintiffs no.1 and 2 will not accrue any right, as the rights of the parties are to be decided. A finding of fact has also been recorded by the court below that as the defendant no.2 who is the son of plaintiff no.1 has executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and the suit has been filed for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by respondent no.5, as such allowing the application will not affect the merit of the case. The rights of the parties are to be decided in suit.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.   From the perusal of the record it is clear that the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court are correct and there is no illegality.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. It is however, open to the respondent no.5 to raise an objection before the trial Court.

4.1.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No.49138 of 1999


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.