Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DURGA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SMT. GITA KUMAR AND ORS.

Decided
23 November 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 623 · 1995 INSC 780

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

It was stated in the memorandum of compromise filed in this Court, that the first respondent had willingly agreed to transfer her right, title and interest in the land, as found by the High Court of Patna in Second Appeal No. 602/74, in the order dated August 29, 1978, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 29,000 payable in lump sum as agreed between the parties. A copy of the receipt dated 30.3.1980 has already been placed on record signed by the husband of the first respondent that the said amount was already received by her. He stated therein that in his presence the amount was passed on to his wife. Under these circumstances, since the matter has been settled out of the Court, it is not necessary to go into the controversy. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above compromise. No costs. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondents as they are not appearing in person or through counsel T.NA. Appeal disposed -·

pp. 623–624, margin E