The High Court dismissed a defendant's second appeal against a decree for possession of residential property. The bench held that no substantial question of law remained for consideration as the lower courts had already addressed the parties' contentions.
None. The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Appeal No.06 of 2014
Dinesh Mamgai and others ….Appellants/Defendants Versus Shri Narendra Kumar Dixit and another
…Respondents/Plaintiffs
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, present for the appellants/defendants.
2
this issue was decided in favour of the respondents. The second issue is for the adverse possession which has also been dealt with by the Courts below which is that the manner in which the work was given to the defendants cannot be a case of “adverse possession”, as it was with the consent of the plaintiffs. This issue as well does not call for any interference.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 24.03.2014
ML
Dinesh Mamgai and others
Shri Narendra Kumar Dixit and another
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
