NIGHAT KHATOON AND OTHERS Vs. RANI GOVIND KUMARI
LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-272
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
September 05,2017
Nighat Khatoon And Others
Appellant
VERSUS
Rani Govind Kumari
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BAKER V. WHITE [REFERRED TO]BABAN SINGH V. JAIMANGAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MT. FAKRUNISA V. MOULVI IZARUS [REFERRED TO]
B.V. NAGESH AND ANR. V. H.V. SREENIVASA MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
H.K.N. SWAMI V. IRSHAD BASITH [REFERRED TO]
GANNATH V. ARULAPPA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA NAND VS. BEHARI LAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SARJU PERSHAD RAMDEO SAHU VS. JWALESHWARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SAINIK MOTORS JODHPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR SUKHPAL SINGH VS. THAKUR KALYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GIRIJANANDINI DEVI VS. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY [REFERRED TO]
KHUB CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
BALLABHADAS MATHURDAS LAKHANI VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE MALKAPUR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM CHANDRA TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN DAS VS. NARAYANIBAI [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR VS. SANGRAM [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI RAM BHUYAN VS. HARI PRASAD BHUYAN [REFERRED TO]
G AMALORPAVAM VS. R C DIOCESE OF MADURAI [REFERRED TO]
GANNMANI ANASUYA VS. PARVATINI AMARENDRA CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
GANNMANI ANASUYA VS. PARVATINI AMARENDRA CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA VS. SANTOSH KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RANCHOD [REFERRED TO]
NOPANY INVESTMENTS P LTD VS. SANTOKH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B V NAGESH VS. H V SREENIVASA MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
PESARA PUSHPAMALA REDDY VS. G VEERA SWAMY [REFERRED TO]
H SIDDIQUI VS. A RAMALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNA INDLEY VS. 5TH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
SOVACHAND MULCHAND VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDANAIK G KALAGHATIGI VS. WEST PATENT PRESS CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNITED ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT A P [REFERRED TO]
UNITED ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT A P [REFERRED TO]
A M SANGAPPA @ SANGAPPA VS. SANGONDEPPA [REFERRED TO]
LAKHMI VS. JUGENDRA LAL [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. GANGADHAR [REFERRED TO]
SHASIDHAR VS. ASHWINI UMA MATHAD [REFERRED TO]
U.P.S.R.T.C. VS. MAMTA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS. VS. S.P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS. [REFERRED TO]
BALA DEVI (SMT.) VS. MUKHTYAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Anil Kumar, J. -
(1.)Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for appellants, Shri J.P. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.)Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, Rani Govind Kumari had filed a suit for possession registered as Regular Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) in the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri and another suit was filed by Mumtaz Ullah Khan for specific performance of contract registered as Regular Suit No. 32/1995 (Mumtaz Ullah Khan Vs. Rani Govind Kumari) before First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri. By means of judgment and decree dated 28.01.1998 First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri has dismissed the Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan), however, decreed the Regular Suit No. 32/1995 (Mumtaz Ullah Khan Vs. Rani Govind Kumari). The judgment and decree passed by trial court in Regular Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) has been challenged by Rani Govind Kumari by filing Civil Appeal No. 40/1998 (Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) and the judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Regular Suit No. 32/1995 was also challenged by Rani Govind Kumari by filing Civil Appeal No. 41/1998 (Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan).
(3.)Both the appeals were clubbed and heard together and by means of judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013 passed by District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, Appeal No. 40/1998 arising out of Original Suit No. 46/1991 was dismissed, however Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1998 arising out of civil Appeal No. 32/1995 was allowed.
(2.)Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, Rani Govind Kumari had filed a suit for possession registered as Regular Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) in the court of First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri and another suit was filed by Mumtaz Ullah Khan for specific performance of contract registered as Regular Suit No. 32/1995 (Mumtaz Ullah Khan Vs. Rani Govind Kumari) before First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri. By means of judgment and decree dated 28.01.1998 First Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lakhimpur Kheri has dismissed the Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan), however, decreed the Regular Suit No. 32/1995 (Mumtaz Ullah Khan Vs. Rani Govind Kumari). The judgment and decree passed by trial court in Regular Suit No. 46/1991(Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) has been challenged by Rani Govind Kumari by filing Civil Appeal No. 40/1998 (Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan) and the judgment and decree passed by trial Court in Regular Suit No. 32/1995 was also challenged by Rani Govind Kumari by filing Civil Appeal No. 41/1998 (Rani Govind Kumari Vs. Mumtaz Ullah Khan).
(3.)Both the appeals were clubbed and heard together and by means of judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013 passed by District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, Appeal No. 40/1998 arising out of Original Suit No. 46/1991 was dismissed, however Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1998 arising out of civil Appeal No. 32/1995 was allowed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.