Senior Advocates in India for Regular Bail

asked 2018-12-26 12:02:57 -0500

ClaraRbf8 gravatar image

The title and possession of the respondent had always been disputed by the appellant from the stage of the written statement. 1987 dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and acquitted the respondents. The Court held that though section 178 of the Act contravened Article law firms 301, it is saved by Article 302 and the writ petition was dismissed. It has already been pointed out that the Court of Appeal without considering the question whether the plaintiff-respondent had proved his title to the property in dispute proceeded to examine whether the said respondent was law firm in Chandigarh possession thereof In a suit for ejectment based on title it was incumbent on part of the Court of Appeal first to record a finding on the claim of title to the suit land made on behalf of the respondent.

law firms

edit retag flag offensive close delete