MAHENDRA YADAV vs OM PRAKASH — C.A. No. 8115/2009

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010001012007

Filing Date

03-Jan-2007

Registration No

C.A. No. 8115/2009

Diary Number

101/2007

Order Date

12-Sep-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 15-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHENDRA YADAV

    Adv. AJAY CHOUDHARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.OM PRAKASH

    Adv. SAURABH MISHRA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Sep-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 12-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

  4. 07-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 27-Nov-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 10-Oct-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 20-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 30-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 07-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 07-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 08-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 11-Apr-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 08-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 30-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 07-Mar-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 03-Jan-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 8115/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 008115/2009 (Mahendra Yadav v. Om Prakash) Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed Mahendra Yadav's appeal on September 12, 2017, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court held that a compromise deed transferring property to Yadav violated Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because the defendant Om Prakash had already parted with his property interest by selling portions to third parties (Bandana Devi Sharma) via registered sale deeds dated 1995 and 1997. Once property interest was transferred, Prakash could not make admissions conferring title on another party. Next Steps: The case was remanded to the trial court to decide the matter on merits without being influenced by prior appellate orders, though no specific timeline was provided. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case