Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mohan Singh Gond Vs. Ram Bai Singh

Mohan Singh Gond vs Ram Bai Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 25, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1047320

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan Singh Gond

Respondent

Ram Bai Singh

Excerpt

writ petition no :2417. / 2013 mohan singh gond versus ram bal singh and others 25.02.2013. shri umesh shrivastava for the petitioner. challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the order passed by the trial court and the findings recorded in paragraph 8, it is seen that the trial court has recorded a finding that on the date of presentation of the suit, the possession of the plaintiff on the suit property is established and, therefore, injunction is granted. the said injunction is affirmed by the appellate court also. even though shri shrivastava tried to emphasize that from the revenue records the possession of the plaintiff is not established, the fact remains that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts based on the actual possession on the date of filing of the suit and the said finding is recorded after due consideration of the material available on record and i see no perversity in the same warranting interference into the matter. as the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts seems to be reasonable in nature, i am not inclined to interfere into the matter. however, learned court below is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the suit in accordance with law after hearing all concerned, within a period of six months. accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No :

2417. / 2013 Mohan Singh Gond versus Ram Bal Singh and others 25.02.2013.

Shri Umesh Shrivastava for the petitioner.

Challenging the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the order passed by the trial court and the findings recorded in paragraph 8, it is seen that the trial court has recorded a finding that on the date of presentation of the suit, the possession of the plaintiff on the suit property is established and, therefore, injunction is granted.

The said injunction is affirmed by the appellate court also.

Even though Shri Shrivastava tried to emphasize that from the revenue records the possession of the plaintiff is not established, the fact remains that concurrent findings have been recorded by both the courts based on the actual possession on the date of filing of the suit and the said finding is recorded after due consideration of the material available on record and I see no perversity in the same warranting interference into the matter.

As the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts seems to be reasonable in nature, I am not inclined to interfere into the matter.

However, learned court below is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the suit in accordance with law after hearing all concerned, within a period of six months.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial