The photo has been used for symbolic representation. Awakening
Law correspondent, Jagran, Prayagraj. The Allahabad High Court has made very strict remarks against the trial court, declaring the decree passed against a deceased person in a case as legally void.
The single bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, while accepting the appeal of Municipal Corporation Ghaziabad, has termed the decision as a case of judicial murder in broad daylight. Besides, by canceling the disputed decision and decree, administrative action has been recommended against the then Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jasveer Singh Yadav.
He has directed to place the documents before the Chief Justice. According to the facts of the case, Indramohan Sachdev had claimed that he is the owner of plot number nine located at Anand Industrial Estate, GT Road, Ghaziabad.
He has got this right on the basis of a unilateral decree passed in another case in the year 2022. No one challenged this. He applied to register his name in the Municipal Corporation. If no action was taken, an injunction suit was filed. It was accepted by the Civil Judge Senior Division on May 13, 2025. The Municipal Corporation challenged this order in the High Court.
Said that in the suit in which the ownership of Indramohan Sachdev has been declared, the defendant Sushila Mehra had already died. In such a situation, it was not right to pass a unilateral decree in 2022 in the case registered in 2019.
Also read- Big initiative for water safety in UP: Sailors and passengers will get more than 66 thousand life jackets in 38 districts
The High Court has said that the reason given for ignoring Sushila Mehra's death certificate is shocking, distorted and tainted with outside ideas. This should be strongly condemned. This is judicial misconduct and casts doubt on the integrity of the judge.
The court said, the case has shocked the conscience. How can a judge act in this way to unfairly benefit the plaintiff? The facts themselves are clear as to how the law has been blatantly violated and justice has been denied.
The plaintiff's father Parmanand had taken the disputed property on rent from Sushila Mehra in the year 1969. Paid rent till 1996. Thereafter, no rent was paid after becoming the owner due to adverse possession. The Court said, it is well known that the tenant in the disputed property is not entitled to claim ownership of that property on the basis of adverse possession.
Chyawanprash is a part of every Indian's life, it reduces diseases and increases energy.