Dismissed

Abdul Hakim Khan v. Abdul Karim Khan and Another

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2007SA/218/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the second appeal against a decree for possession evicting the appellant. The court upheld lower courts finding that the respondent established title through overwhelming documentary evidence. The appellant was granted three months to vacate the premises.

What did the court decide?

Three months' time granted to the appellant/defendant to vacate the suit premises.

WWW WWW	'Wwm	WW§WW %3T%mem%31
	$4i$1i2nw Shri Sreekumar Agrawai, Se Gupta) counse! for the appellant. Snri Gautam Khetrapai, cour Heard on admissicn. Brief 7'acis are that one Smt M32 :‘or eviction of one Hakim diemiseai of me suit on the ground was not established, Jaibur—Bi there for possession on the basis of titi expired. On the basis or" win Ex. F respondenrsipiaintios were substm Civn Judge, crass—L Biiaspur vide jL	sei for the reepondentsi r nior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Jai‘oui—Bi had filed civil suit N0. “i39v Khan from the suit premises. Upon :hat reiationehip of iandiord and tenant after. instituted civil suit No. 12—N2000 a, During pendeney of suit, Jaibul-Bi '—’i executed by Jaieui-Bi, the present ted as piaintitfs. The reamed Second dgment and decree dated 4* January,
	2am awarded decree for possessr piaintirr’s nad estabiished title over said judgmemt and decree, the de AQOO‘i in the Cour‘i of Seventh Ac judgment and decree dated 21. recorded by Line rower Court t'ne'a defendantiappeilan'r has preferred E The defendant’ciaime tide if be in :ong and uninterrupted posse: estabhsn the ritie of Tai—Bi over fhe any documentary evidence. i have perused the testimor which she has made an assertion t premises ^onpayment ^{of rent} On;	3n of suit premises on the ground that the suit property. Aggrieved by the iendant pretetred Civii Appeai No. 1'— ditional District Judge, Bilaspur. Vide 4.2001, white affirming the findings opeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the tecond Appeal. trough one Tat—Bi and aiso ciaimed to ssion of the suit property. However, to suit property the'detendant did not file y ^{of Saima}{DW/3) in paragraph 4 in tat Smt. Jaibui-Bi was iiving in the suit erusai of the testimony of DW/4 it aiLso ’

WWW
WWW

'Wwm

WW§WW
%3T%mem%31

$4i$1i2nw
Shri Sreekumar Agrawai, Se
Gupta) counse! for the appellant.
Snri Gautam Khetrapai, cour
Heard on admissicn.
Brief 7'acis are that one Smt
M32
:‘or
eviction
of
one
Hakim
diemiseai of me suit on the ground
was not established, Jaibur—Bi there
for possession on the basis
of
titi
expired. On the basis
or" win
Ex.
F
respondenrsipiaintios were substm
Civn Judge, crass—L Biiaspur vide jL

sei for the reepondentsi

r

nior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar
Jai‘oui—Bi had filed
civil suit N0.
“i39v
Khan
from
the
suit
premises.
Upon
:hat reiationehip of iandiord and tenant
after.
instituted civil suit No. 12—N2000
a,
During pendeney
of suit,
Jaibul-Bi
'—’i
executed
by Jaieui-Bi,
the present
ted as piaintitfs.
The reamed Second
dgment and decree dated 4* January,

2am awarded decree for possessr
piaintirr’s
nad
estabiished
title
over
said judgmemt and
decree,
the de
AQOO‘i
in the Cour‘i of Seventh Ac
judgment
and
decree
dated
21.
recorded by
Line rower Court t'ne'a
defendantiappeilan'r has preferred E
The defendant’ciaime tide
if
be
in :ong and uninterrupted posse:
estabhsn the ritie of Tai—Bi over fhe
any documentary evidence.
i
have perused the testimor
which she has made an assertion t
premises ^onpayment ^{of rent}
On;

3n of suit premises on the ground that
the
suit
property.
Aggrieved
by the
iendant
pretetred
Civii Appeai
No.
1'—
ditional
District Judge,
Bilaspur.
Vide
4.2001,
white
affirming
the
findings
opeal was dismissed.
Aggrieved,
the
tecond Appeal.
trough one Tat—Bi and aiso ciaimed
to
ssion of the suit property.
However, to
suit property the'detendant did not file
y ^{of Saima}{DW/3)
in paragraph 4
in
tat Smt. Jaibui-Bi was iiving in the suit
erusai of the testimony of DW/4
it aiLso
’

WW WW §?3I%wan%m
emerges that the suit property was under mortgage with one Foolchand from whom r’ne property ^was purchased by Jarbul—Bi vide EXP-’1. The plaintiff ^{on the other}hand has file n the Courts beiow on appreciatron or” f0 estabiisn tirie of Jaibui—Bi. 30: j overwherming documentary evidence evidence on record have rightiy ccme to the conciusion z'nai Jaibui-Bi titie over the suit prooeriy, So far as the wiii executed by Jaibui-Bi favour of respondent/memoir is concerned, the piaintiff had examined the attesting witnesses as aiso one Abdui Karim Khan (PWI3) and the execution of wiii by daibui-Bi was thus proved in accordance with iawr in this View of the matter, i am of the considered opinion that findings recorded by both the Courts beiow are impeccabie and substantiai question of iaw is involved in the second appeai. Accordihgiy, the Second Appeai is dismissed at the stage of admission There shaii be no otder as to costs At this Stage, Shri- Agrawa, learned Senior Advocate prays that three months’ time be granted to the appellant/defendant to vacate the sLiit premises. Prayer is not opposed
Three months: time t'om today is granted to the appeiiant/defenda'nt to vacate the suit premises. in View of the above, M (C).P. No. i375/2005 and LA No. 1??)1/2003 stand disposed of. .. Sd/— Dihp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge

WW WW
§?3I%wan%m

emerges that the suit property was under mortgage with one Foolchand
from whom
r’ne
property ^was
purchased
by Jarbul—Bi vide
EXP-’1.
The
plaintiff ^{on the other}hand has file
n the Courts
beiow on
appreciatron
or”
f0 estabiisn
tirie of Jaibui—Bi.
30:
j overwherming documentary evidence
evidence on record have rightiy ccme to the conciusion z'nai Jaibui-Bi
titie over the suit
prooeriy,
So far as the
wiii executed by Jaibui-Bi
favour of respondent/memoir is concerned, the piaintiff had examined the
attesting
witnesses
as
aiso
one
Abdui
Karim
Khan
(PWI3)
and
the
execution of wiii by daibui-Bi was thus proved in accordance with iawr
in
this View
of the
matter,
i am
of the
considered
opinion
that
findings
recorded
by
both
the
Courts
beiow
are
impeccabie
and
substantiai question of iaw is involved in the second appeai.
Accordihgiy,
the Second Appeai is dismissed at the stage of admission
There shaii be no otder as to costs
At this Stage,
Shri- Agrawa,
learned Senior Advocate prays that
three months’ time be granted to the appellant/defendant to vacate the
sLiit premises.
Prayer is not opposed

Three
months:
time
t'om
today
is
granted
to
the
appeiiant/defenda'nt to vacate the suit premises.
in
View
of
the
above,
M (C).P.
No.
i375/2005
and
LA
No.
1??)1/2003 stand disposed of.
..
Sd/—
Dihp Raosaheb
Deshmukh
Judge

Abdul Hakim Khan v. Abdul Karim Khan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hakim Khan v. Abdul Karim Khan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Saluja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Editor Dainik Deshbandu and Ano Vs Mohelal Rajwade and Others

Uma Shankar Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Janki Bai and Others Vs Mohd.Tarique Ejaz and Others

Radheram and Others Vs Dhirpal and Others

Chhagan Vs Smt.Indu Patel and Others