Harakhram v. Santosh and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
First Appeal under Section 96(2) of the CPC by Rarakhram against a decree in a partition suit involving multiple respondents.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed.
What the court decided
L
IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR
®ttglBBancli
F.A. No. \T2- of 2011
r^
^CrJ~^<LL-^-^
APPELLANT: ^ Rarakhram, aged 46 years,
^Defendant S/o ^isal Sahu, resident of
village Kundel,P.O. Kundel,
Tehsil Kyrud, District
Dhamtari
Versus
RESPONDENTS: Santosh, son oflate Girdhar
^Plaintiff . . Sahu, aged 8 years,
through next friend
Laxman, son of Shyam Lal
Sahu, Uncle, aged 21 years,
^&;^.'-<
^t&^^1'' 'o^-" Resident of Village Limora,
Tehsil and District Raipur
DEFENDANT 2. Lalji, Son of not known,
aged 31 years, Resident of
Village Kundel, P.0.
Kundel, Tehsil Kurud,
District Dhamtari
DEFENDANT ?• State of Chhattisgarh,
Through Collector,
Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari (CG)
"r"
FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 (2i OF THE CPC
^ ^'x.'% 1.
a
^^-'<:'XIJIC—78
^=^ ^pn^q-^ ^ft(TTTg, f^WK
^i^^i <^n^
••?FI .J-.i.J.?^,.^'.. 20
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Section 96(2) of the CPC is maintainable.
Disposal of the first appeal arising from a partition suit.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rarakhram
- respondent
Santosh, son of late Girdhar Sahu
- respondent
Laxman, son of Shyam Lal Sahu
- respondent
Lalji, son of not known
- respondent
State of Chhattisgarh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Chhattisgarh HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- FA/172/2011
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court