Sunita Devi vs.veerma Devi & Anr

Sunita Devi vs Veerma Devi & Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 21, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1204293

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1204293
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Nov 21, 2016
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

Sunita Devi

Advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma

Respondent

Veerma Devi & Anr

Excerpt

$~21. * + 1. in the high court of delhi at new delhi rfa8982016 sunita devi ..... appellant through: mr. abhimanyu sharma, advocate versus ........ respondents through: none veerma devi & anr coram: hon'ble ms. justice hima kohli % order2111.2016 the appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the trial court in a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits instituted by the respondent no.1 (mother-in-law of the appellant and mother of the respondent no.2) in respect of the suit premises. vide the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent no.1 and directed the appellant no.1 and the respondent no.2 to pay damages/mesne profits to the respondent no.1 @ 1,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of handing over possession alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.2. counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments for some time but has not been able to persuade the court to interfere as no error in appreciation of the evidence and the findings returned by the trial court has been pointed out. rfa no.898/2016 page 1 of 2 3. at the request of the counsel for the appellant, the matter was passed over to enable him to obtain instructions from his client if she and her husband (respondent no.2 herein) would be willing to vacate the suit premises if granted some reasonable time.4. on pass over, counsel for the appellant states that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of his client to file a suit against the respondent no.1 for recovery of money that the appellant and respondent no.2 had allegedly invested in the suit premises.5. the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending applications with liberty granted to the appellant to seek her remedies against the respondent no.1, as may be permissible in law. it is however made clear, that this court has not expressed.....

Full Judgment

$~21. * + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RFA8982016 SUNITA DEVI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate versus ........ RESPONDENTS

Through: None VEERMA DEVI & ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % ORDER

2111.2016 The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the trial court in a suit for possession, damages and mesne profits instituted by the respondent No.1 (mother-in-law of the appellant and mother of the respondent No.2) in respect of the suit premises. Vide the impugned judgment, the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and permanent injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 and directed the appellant No.1 and the respondent No.2 to pay damages/mesne profits to the respondent No.1 @ 1,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of handing over possession alongwith interest @ 8% per annum.

2. Counsel for the appellant has addressed arguments for some time but has not been able to persuade the Court to interfere as no error in appreciation of the evidence and the findings returned by the trial court has been pointed out. RFA No.898/2016 Page 1 of 2 3. At the request of the counsel for the appellant, the matter was passed over to enable him to obtain instructions from his client if she and her husband (respondent No.2 herein) would be willing to vacate the suit premises if granted some reasonable time.

4. On pass over, counsel for the appellant states that he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal while reserving the right of his client to file a suit against the respondent No.1 for recovery of money that the appellant and respondent No.2 had allegedly invested in the suit premises.

5. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending applications with liberty granted to the appellant to seek her remedies against the respondent No.1, as may be permissible in law. It is however made clear, that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the maintainability or the merits of the claim of the appellant as sought to be raised against the respondent No.1 in fresh legal proceedings. HIMA KOHLI, J NOVEMBER21 2016 rkb RFA No.898/2016 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2016 Same Parties Sunita Devi vs Veerma Devi & Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition