ASHOK KUMAR vs DARSHAN SINGH . — SLP(C) No. 12538/2009

Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010218902008

Filing Date

01-Aug-2008

Registration No

SLP(C) No. 12538/2009

Diary Number

21890/2008

Order Date

19-Aug-2011

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHOK KUMAR

    Adv. K. L. JANJANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DARSHAN SINGH .

    Adv. MRS. VIPIN GUPTA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 13-May-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 13-May-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 19-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 02-Mar-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 01-Dec-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 15-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 02-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 21-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 18-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 08-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 24-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 11-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 16-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 10-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 11-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 16-Feb-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 08-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 01-Aug-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. SLP(C) No. 12538/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed Ashok Kumar's special leave petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment dated 9 April 2008. Kumar had filed a suit seeking specific performance of a land sale agreement dated 26 August 1994 with Darshan Singh for Rs. 60,000, claiming he paid Rs. 30,000 advance. While the trial court decreed the suit, the lower appellate court reversed it, finding that Darshan Singh had validly sold the property to Tejpal Singh and Raj Bala (bona fide purchasers without notice) via registered deed dated 8 September 1994. The Supreme Court upheld this finding as a pure question of fact based on correct analysis of evidence and pleadings, and found no error warranting interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case