Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajesh Kumar Jain vs Rakesh Kumar (Dead) Thro Lrs. Smt. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8049 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8049 MP
Judgement Date : 1 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Kumar Jain vs Rakesh Kumar (Dead) Thro Lrs. Smt. ... on 1 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
                                                                           1                                  SA-589-2021
                                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                         SA No. 589 of 2021
                                        (RAJESH KUMAR JAIN Vs RAKESH KUMAR (DEAD) THRO LRS. SMT. VARSHA BAJAJ AND OTHERS)


                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 01-12-2021
                                              Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                              Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to

Heard on I.A. No. 3190/2021 an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for stay of execution of impugned decree.

Shri Gyanendra Singh Baghel, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.

Shri Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel submits that this second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 17/03/2021 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur in R.C.A. No. 1400006/2013.

It is submitted that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court and the counter claim filed by the defendants was rejected. Thereafter, the defendants had filed a regular first appeal in which

the impugned decree has been passed. Reading from the findings of the

learned Ist Appellate Court recorded in para 16, it is submitted that both the findings recorded in para 16 are perverse and gives rise to the following substantial questions of law :-

(i). Whether reduction in writing of the oral family settlement is required to be registered under the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act ?

(ii). Whether the 1st Appellate Court was justified in disputing admitted signatures of the defendant over the family partition Ex. P-1 without there being any cogent evidence ?

As an interim measure, it is directed that parties shall maintain the status quo in regard to the suit land till the next date of hearing. Signature Not Verified

C.C. as per rules.

  SAN




Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2021.12.02 12:07:59 IST
                                             2            SA-589-2021


                                                (VIVEK AGARWAL)
                                                     JUDGE

                                       vy




Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2021.12.02 12:07:59 IST
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter