Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HEERALAL & OTHER versus JAMANA BAI

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


HEERALAL & OTHER v JAMANA BAI - CSA Case No. 179 of 1999 [2006] RD-RJ 2396 (31 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.179 OF 1999

Heera Lal & Others Versus Jamana Bai & Others

DATE OF ORDER :: 31.10.2006.

HON'BLE MR. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Counsel for plaintiff-appellants

Mr. S.K. Jain, Counsel for defendant-respondents

By the Court :

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

The plaintiff-appellants instituted a suit for partition in respect of the disputed house, which was decreed by the learned Lower Court. However, on an appeal filed on behalf of the defendants, the learned

First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Lower

Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- appellants. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants in the light of the finding of the learned First Appellate Court, who has specifically recorded that the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their contention that the disputed house was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate

Court after appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties has recorded a finding of fact that the disputed house was not the ancestral property of both the parties.

The question involved in the present case relates to the question of facts and there is a finding of fact by the First Appellate Court, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C.

No illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants in the judgment and decree passed by the First

Appellate Court.

No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs.

(Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/


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.