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.

Parasram Vs. Santosh Kumar

Parasram vs Santosh Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 30, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052198

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parasram

Respondent

Santosh Kumar

Excerpt

(1) s.a.no.97/2001 high court of m.p.principal seat at jabalpur single bench : hon'ble shri justice a.k.shrivastava second appeal no.97/2001 appellant parasram dubey, s/o. guruprasad defendant alias gola maharaj, r/o. nehru ward (bargawan).tehsil katni district jabalpur. versus respondent santosh kumar, s/o. radhika plaintiff prasad paroha, occupation resident of village amkuhi, tehsil katni, district jabalpur (m.p.) ______________________________________________ shri pranay verma, advocate for appellant. shri divesh jain, advocate for respondent. ______________________________________________ date of hearing :13. 9/2012 date of judgment :30. 10/2012 judgment (delivered on this 30th day of october, 2012) for the reasons stated in firs.appeal no.94/1998 (parasram dubey v. santosh & anr.) there is (2) s.a.no.97/2001 no merit in this appeal. apart from this, since i have already held that the transaction between the parties was not a mortgage but an outright sale, therefore, the substantial question of law no.1 is thus answered that registered sale-deed dated 28.07.1987 (ex.p-1) was out right sale. since the execution of rent note is not disputed between the parties and the rent was also not deposited in the court as well as it was not paid to the defendant before filing the suit, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. the substantial question of law no.2 is thus answered that learned two court below rightly arrived at a finding that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been proved.”2. this second appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (a.k.shrivastava) judge ss

Full Judgment

(1) S.A.No.97/2001 HIGH COURT OF M.P.PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K.Shrivastava Second Appeal No.97/2001 Appellant Parasram Dubey, S/o.

Guruprasad Defendant alias Gola Maharaj, R/o.

Nehru Ward (Bargawan).Tehsil Katni District Jabalpur.

versus Respondent Santosh Kumar, S/o.

Radhika Plaintiff Prasad Paroha, Occupation resident of Village Amkuhi, Tehsil Katni, District Jabalpur (M.P.) ______________________________________________ Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Divesh Jain, Advocate for respondent.

______________________________________________ Date of hearing :

13. 9/2012 Date of judgment :

30. 10/2012 JUDGMENT

(Delivered on this 30th day of October, 2012) For the reasons stated in FiRs.Appeal No.94/1998 (Parasram Dubey v.

Santosh & Anr.) there is (2) S.A.No.97/2001 no merit in this appeal.

Apart from this, since I have already held that the transaction between the parties was not a mortgage but an outright sale, therefore, the substantial question of law no.1 is thus answered that registered sale-deed dated 28.07.1987 (Ex.P-1) was out right sale.

Since the execution of rent note is not disputed between the parties and the rent was also not deposited in the Court as well as it was not paid to the defendant before filing the suit, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties.

The substantial question of law no.2 is thus answered that learned two Court below rightly arrived at a finding that relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has been proved.”

2. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

(A.K.Shrivastava) Judge SS

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial