RAM RATTAN (DEAD) BY LRS. vs DEVI RAM — C.A. No. 1541/2011

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010161312010

Filing Date

14-May-2010

Registration No

C.A. No. 1541/2011

Diary Number

16131/2010

Order Date

07-Oct-2021

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAM RATTAN (DEAD) BY LRS.

    Adv. GARIMA PRASHAD (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DEVI RAM

    Adv. ATUL SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Oct-2021

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 07-Oct-2021

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian

  4. 06-Oct-2021

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian

  5. 08-Apr-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 08-Apr-2019

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

  7. 28-Mar-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 28-Mar-2018

    Auto Updated (Cmis)

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

  9. 13-Feb-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 13-Feb-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 11-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 17-Jun-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 17-Jun-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 30-Apr-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 30-Apr-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 08-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 03-May-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 07-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 12-Jan-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 16-Jul-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 14-May-2010

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 1541/2011

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 001541/2011 Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal on October 7, 2021. The appellants (Ram Rattan's legal representatives) argued that a 45-year-old usufructuary mortgage should have made them owners of the property, but the Court upheld the principle of "once a mortgage always a mortgage"—that mortgages have no limitation period. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case