New Delhi: Disputes related to a small piece of land in Sitapur Remiced Village, Surguja District in Chhattisgarh, said that buying for RS 100 in 1963, has continued to involve the three-level justice delivery system for several decades of the court taking the curtain on Thursday.
The head of the Justice of Justice NV Ramana and Judge as Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy told Virendra Kumar Singh’s applicant that it appreciated his persistence in fighting cases that had no benefits and he could be valued by imposing the burial costs of all courts.
Virendra Kumar Singh has filed a lawsuit in court court for certain contract performance and permanent commands on the Suit property that has an area of ​​0.287 hectares.
He claimed that he had signed an agreement to buy with Parshuram on March 19, 1963 for cash considerations of RS 100 and since then, he has the property.
However, he claimed that Parshuram sold property to Indrajeet Singh Bedi on June 22, 1979 and Bedium received his name mutating in the income record.
Bedi denied the allegations and said he had bought property from Parshuram and his brother and his mother on February 26, 1979 for cash considerations of RS 700 and Parshuram had never sold its properties to Singh.
Court of the trial, after examining verbal and documentary evidence, eliminating the agreement for sale for the sake of Singh and said that he did not have the property and rejected the lawsuit by holding up the limitations.
The first appellate court also confirmed the court’s decision.
Appeal, HC said, “Both the court has clearly stated that the agreement for sale on March 19, 1963, was executed by Parshuram who supported Singh, not stipulated and the ownership of Singh on the land was also not yet established and that the lawsuit was destroyed with limits due to the agreement for the agreement sold dated March 19, 1963 while Singh filed a lawsuit on May 30, 1995.
“” The findings recorded by the court below hold the Plaintiff’s lawsuit for boundaries is the findings of the facts based on the evidence available on notes that are not misguided or contrary to notes for sale Having been established also did not suffer from all negligence and also, both the court below has clearly held that the Plaintiff does not have a suitable property that is also a pure finding fact that does not suffer from all negligence or illegality that guarantees 100 interference from BPK, much less Framing of S.
ELEP’s big legal questions are needed for determination, “HC said.
SC dismissed the appeal against the HC command.