The First Appeal was dismissed as infructuous because the underlying sale deed in favor of the respondent had been cancelled in a separate suit (O.S. No. 41 of 1994), rendering the appeal without substance.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 2 .1 2 .2 0 2 1 | FA No.48 of 2008 Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Rajeev Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in the management of the trust. The sale deed, which was executed in favour of the respondent no.6, in the light of the agreement of sale dated 30.07.1993, has been cancelled by the competent court in different suit bearing O.S. No.41 of 1994. After advancing the said submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this First Appeal has become now infructuous. The First Appeal No.48 of 2008 is dismissed as infructuous. |
||
| ( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) 0 2 .1 2 .2 0 2 1 Neha |
Appellant
Respondent no.6
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
