w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Subhan v/s V.S. Ramachandra


Company & Directors' Information:- VS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31200MH2005PTC157071

    Civil Revision Petition No. 455 of 2017 (SC)

    Decided On, 13 March 2018

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

    For the Petitioner: M.S. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Council for M.S. Mukarram, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.B. Ravishanker, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This CRP is filed under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court Act, against the judgment and decree Dtd: 08.09.2017 passed in Sc.No.952/2014 on the file of the XXI ADDL. SCJ and XIX ACMM, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, decreeing the suit for eviction.)

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.S. Rajendra Prasad on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Caveator/Respondent.

2. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.09.2017 directing the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of the decree, the petitioner is defendant No.3 before the trial court. The parties in this petition are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing shop (old) No.34 and New No.227, situated at Arcot Srinivasachar Street, Bengaluru-560 053, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 17 feet. That the father of the plaintiff had acquired the schedule properties in a court auction and under sale certificate dated 09.08.1935.

4. That the father of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was inducted as a tenant in the schedule property permitting him to carry out business. That the father of the plaintiff died in the year 1964 and thereafter the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued paying the rent to the plaintiff. After the death of the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were permitted to continue the business and continue the use and occupation of the premises. That the tenancy is a monthly tenancy and commences from the first of every month and ends with the last day of the same month.

5. That the plaintiff has taken steps for evicting the other tenants as the plaintiff intended to put up a hotel on the suit schedule property including the adjacent property. That in furtherance of the same, the plaintiff called upon to defendant Nos.1 and 2 to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession, but they failed to pay heed to the same. At this stage, defendant No.3 preferred a suit in O.S. No.25807/2013 seeking a restraint order against the plaintiff from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property and it was only then, the plaintiff came to know about the fact of subletting of the suit schedule properties by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendant No.3 and have thereby violated the terms of the tenancy by subletting the suit schedule property to defendant No.3. Hence, a quit notice was got issued on 19.06.2014 terminating the tenancy of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and called upon the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property on 15.07.2014. The defendant No.3 was impleaded in the above suit as it was alleged by him that he is a tenant in occupation of the suit schedule premises and hence, quit notice was also got issued to defendant No.3. The notices were received by the defendants and they got issued untenable replies. Further the defendants omitted to comply with the demand under the quit notices and hence, the present suit.

6. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the trial court has erred in not considering the claim of the defendant more particularly that of the defendant No.3, that he is in occupation of the suit schedule premises in his own right as a purchaser, under an agreement of sale dated 28.08.2001 and that the plaintiff is not the landlord and that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the property and that they had leased out the property under the agreement of lease dated 04.08.1998 and later entered into an agreement dated 10.10.2000 and that under the subsequent agreement of sale dated 28.08.2001, the petitioner has acquired an interest in the suit schedule property and stepped into the shoes of the owner.

7. He would nextly contend that the suit schedule property has also not been identified and he would draw the attention of the court to the decree and to the schedule in the sale certificate executed by the court pursuant to the sale of the suit schedule property under a court auction. He would contend that the court below erred in not noticing the glaring error and ought to have called upon the plaintiff to demonstrate the identity of the property. Hence, he would contend that the order impugned under the present revision petition warrants further consideration. He would nextly contend that the court below has erred in holding that there indeed exists a jural relationship between the parties.

8. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been placed ex-parte, though served have chosen to remain absent and have chosen not to contest the suit of the plaintiff.

9. He got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P21. To summarize, the exhibits are the certified copy of the sale deed of the year 1935, certified copy of the property card, certified copy of the sketch, certified copy of six Khatas, certified copy of the 17 tax paid receipts and the true copy of the map with the property card. There is no dispute that all the above documents pertains to the suit schedule property. The documents have not been disputed by the defendants nor have they been controverted.

10. The defendant got examined DW-1 to 3 and got marked exhibits D1 to D13. To summarize, the same are two electricity bills, one receipt, licence, a copy of the legal notice, two postal receipts and acknowledgment, copy of the plaint in O.S. No.25807/2013, a copy of the written statement filed in the said suit, agreement of lease said to have been exhibited by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 dated 04.08.1998 and other agreement of rent said to have been executed by the said defendants on 10.10.2000 and sale agreement dated 28.08.2001 yet again said to have been executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

11. On the above pleadings and the list of documents placed before the court, the court was pleased to frame five issues. The first issue relates to proof of jural relationship. The second issue pertains to the issue as to whether the defendant No.3 demonstrates that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and as to whether they have conveyed the same in favour of the defendant No.3 by executing an agreement of sale. The third issue pertains to the termination of tenancy.

12. The trial court after a detailed appraisal of the contentions and the material on record has been pleased to hold issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue 2 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative. The trial court has relied on the very proceedings initiated by the third defendant in O.S. No.25807/2013 and also the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No.653/1969 and the order passed in M.A. No.44/1969 to conclude that there indeed exists a jural relationship. The court below has relied on the judgment and decree in O.S. No.653/1969 and M.A. No.44/1969 to conclude that the father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 who was the plaintiff No.4 in the said suit had admitted the tenancy under the plaintiff. Further, it also relied upon the pleadings in O.S. No.25807/2013 to conclude that the third defendant/petitioner herein is a tenant and is not in occupation of the property as the absolute owner. The finding rendered by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

13. With regard to the issue No.2 that is the alleged claim of ownership, set up by the defendant No.3, it has concluded that the said issue is not proved in view of the fact that the defendant No.3 has failed to examine any of the witnesses or the attestors to the exhibits D10 to D12 in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It has also concluded that witnesses DW2 and 3 are not the attestors to the three documents and the said witnesses have also admitted in the cross examination that they are not aware of the recitals in the document and it has also taken note of the admission that they do not know who the real owner of the plaint schedule is. They have also admitted their ignorance about the contents of the said documents and hence it concluded that the depositions of DW2 and 3 in no way advances the case of the defendant No.3.

14. As regards the contention with regard to identity of the property, the said contention at the best could be described as a shot in the dark.

15. No doubt it is settled principles of law that the burden of demonstrating a fact is on the party alleging any fact. The plaintiff undoubtedly has led in voluminous evidence to demonstrate his claim of title over the suit schedule property. The defendant who has also set up his own title adverse to that of the plaintiff has not let in even a scrap of evidence to demonstrate the vesting of the title in either defendant Nos.1 and 2 or himself or in the family of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

16. As regards the identity of the property the identity of the property situated at Bengaluru has been ascertained by the revenue authorities who have assigned a property identification number, otherwise called as PID number, in respect of all the properties in the city. That apart, there is no variance in the description of the schedule detailed in the plaint and the schedule detailed in the sale certificate issued by the court way back in the year 1935. Hence, none of the contentions canvassed by the Senior Counsel in any way discredits or controverts the findings rendered by the trial court.

17. Ap

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

art from that above, it is also relevant to note that the defendant No.3 has not approached the court with clean hands as noted by the court below. In the pleadings in the suit instituted by him, he as set up a case of sub- tenancy and thereafter proceeded to claim title in himself in the present suit. Further, it also apparent that he has used legal proceedings to brow-beat the plaintiff by instituting a suit which was wholly unwarranted. Despite the same, the defendant No.3 has proceeded to make an audacious attempt to knockoff the property. 18. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree called in question under the present Revision Petition rendered by the court of the Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) dated 08.09.2017 rendered in S.C. No.952/2014 does not warrant any interference at the hands of the court. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected without being admitted. In view of rejection of the writ petition, I.A. No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

09-12-2019 V.S. Kumaran & Another Versus K.B. Raju High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 Bhavik Bhimjiyani & Others Vs. Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 V.S. Agency, Rep. by its Partner, C. Santhanam Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-09-2019 Commandant V.S. Shekhawat Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-07-2019 V.S. Balasaravanan & Another Versus S. Santha High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-07-2019 V.S. Duraisamy & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Energy Secretary, TNEB, Energy Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2019 V.S. Revathy Versus Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
05-07-2019 Arif Buhary Rahman, Through his Power of Attorney V.S. Gopalakrishnan & Others Versus Siddesh Kshirsagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-06-2019 United Spirits Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary, V.S. Venkataraman & Another Versus IDBI Bank Limited & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-04-2019 V.S. Nithiyanandam Versus Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-04-2019 Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Another Versus V.S. Akhilesh & Others Supreme Court of India
27-03-2019 V.S. Singaram Versus The Commissioner of Police & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2019 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers' Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, V.S. Sampath Kumar, Chennai Versus The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Managing Limited, Represented by its Chairman, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2019 V.S. Joy Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
05-03-2019 V.S. Joy Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
01-03-2019 C.V. Rambabu, Madurai Town Versus V.S. Chandrasekaran & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
19-02-2019 T. Parashuram & Others Versus Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers' Sangam, Reg. No. 124/MDS, Represented by its General Secretary V.S. Sampath Kumar, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2019 Corporation Bank Vs Amtek Auto Ltd & Others with The Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited, through Corporation Bank Vs 1. Liberty House Group Pte Ltd & 2. Mr. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian wih Liberty House Group Pte Ltd Vs 1. Dinkar T. Venkatasubramanian & 2. Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Limited National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh
30-01-2019 V.S. Subash Versus The Managing Director, Vijay Motors (Unit of CUVV Automotive P (Ltd)., Palakkad & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
24-01-2019 S. Thiagarajan & Others Versus M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director V.S. Suresh, Ambojini, Teynampet High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-01-2019 V.S. Ushakumari Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
07-01-2019 V.S. Ramesh Kumar Versus S. Nirosha High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-12-2018 DCIT, Circle 6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
06-12-2018 V.S. Devarajan & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Industries (K) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
27-11-2018 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Somdatt Sharma & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-11-2018 V.S. Babu Versus The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2018 V.S. Bashir Versus The Director of Mining & Geology & Others High Court of Kerala
24-10-2018 V.S. Bashir Versus The Director of Mining & Geology & Others High Court of Kerala
04-10-2018 M/s. V.S. Yarn, By its Partner, B. Thangavel Versus M/s. Adhaven Cottage India (P) Ltd., By its M.D., K. Natarajan High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-10-2018 V.S. Ravi Kumar Versus Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director & Another In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
11-09-2018 V.S. Chinnasamy Versus The District Collector, Erode & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2018 V.S. Sundara Raman, Represented by his mother & Power Agent Kamala Vidhyashankar Versus V. Vaishnavi High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-08-2018 N. Shaji, Rep. by his wife/guardian V.S. Mary Sheeja Versus N. Francis & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2018 M. Bavaramma Versus M/s. Pancharatna Transport Company Rep. by V.S. Vijay Babu & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
01-08-2018 Bharat Bright Bars P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer 5(1)(2) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai
18-07-2018 Exide Industries Limited Vs M/s. C.G. Enterprise High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-07-2018 V.S. Subeeksha & Others Dental Council of India, Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2018 Parameswaran Pillai Versus V.S. Ravi High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2018 V.S. Sankar Versus R. Elango High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-06-2018 V.S. Sankar Versus R. Elango High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-05-2018 Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited and Others VS Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
14-05-2018 M/s. HMM Infra Ltd. Vs M/s. Chaudhary Engineering & Fabrication High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-03-2018 M/s. Amalgamations Ltd. & Another Versus V.S. Sureshkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-03-2018 Varun Kumar Pandey & Another vs State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-03-2018 Subhan Versus V.S. Ramachandra High Court of Karnataka
05-01-2018 Vaaan Infra Pvt. Ltd. vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation High Court of Delhi
03-01-2018 V.S. Rangasamy (died) & Others Versus S.N. Subramanian High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2017 P. Selvarajan Vs The Commissioner Directorate of Town and Country Planning Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-12-2017 V.S. Sundararajan & Another Versus Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2017 The Asst. Director Handloom & Textile, Trichy & Another Vs Padmavathy High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2017 V.S. Suresh Versus National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by the Deputy General Manager & Project Director, PIU Krishnagiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-11-2017 Commissioner of C. Ex., Jodhpur V/S V.S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd. Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
17-10-2017 In the matter of: M/s. Medici Holding Limited Vs. M/s. Photon Infotech Private Limited & Others National Company Law Tribunal Chennai
08-09-2017 Vipulkumar Dahyalal Bheda Versus V.S. Cosmopharma Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
11-08-2017 M/s. Medanta The Medicity & Others Versus V.S. Tyagi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-08-2017 National Institute of Fashion Technology rep. by its Director General NIFT Campus, Hauz Khas, Near Gulmohar Park & Another Versus V.S. Jayya Vishrant High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2017 Indian Chemicals & Minerals VS Commissioner of C. Ex., Salem Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
01-08-2017 V.S. Ekambaram Proprietor Sangupani Fuels Versus Krishna Tiles and Potteries [Madras] Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2017 The State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare, rep. By Secretary, Fort. St. George, Chennai & Others Versus V.S. Sai Sachin, minor rep. by his father and natural guardian & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-07-2017 Jaswant Singh and Others VS Prakash Kaur and Others. Supreme Court of India
14-07-2017 V.S. Sai Sachin, Minor represented by his father & Natural Guardian, V. Suresh Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Department of Health & Family Welfare represented by its Secretary, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2017 V.S. Jayaa Vishrant Versus National Institute of Fashion Technology, Rep. By its Director General, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2017 V.S. Ranganayaki & Others Versus The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-06-2017 V.S. Ranganayaki & Others Versus The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-05-2017 M/s. Gulmohar Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
03-05-2017 Sri Suraj Kumar Kanodia, Howrah vs Ito, Ward-47(3), Kolkata Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
03-05-2017 M/s. Deepshikha Vinimay (P).Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata
27-04-2017 Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd . Versus V.S. Pandey & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-03-2017 Ottakoothar Charitable Trust, Rep.by V.S. Pushparaj & Another Versus V. Deivasigamani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2017 P. Narayanan Versus V.S. Palaniyappan High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-03-2017 Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-02-2017 V.S. Rehfan, Working as production Assistant in HLL Lifecare Ltd. Vattakkudi House, Perumbavoor & Others Versus H.L.L. Lifecare Ltd. Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Thiruvnananthapuram & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
14-02-2017 Ganesan Versus V.S. Dhandapani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2017 V.S. Kathiresan Versus The State rep. by its The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-02-2017 V.S. Agriculture Senior Secondary School Through Its Manager Versus Director of Education & Another High Court of Delhi
03-02-2017 Mukesh Infoserve Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director V.S. Varadarajan Versus IDBI Bank Limited Rep. By its Deputy General Manager & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2017 East Renga Middle School Tiruchirappalli represented by its Secretary, Srirangam High School Committee V.S. Sadagopa Ramanujam Versus The Inspector General of Registration Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-01-2017 V.S. Ramaiah Versus The Principal Secretary of Government Environment & Forest Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-12-2016 V.S. Ramalingam Versus B. Laalitha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-12-2016 V.S. Gunaseelan Versus The Forest Range Officer Pollachi Forest Range High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2016 V.S. Suprabha Versus The General Manager, District Industries Centre High Court of Kerala
06-10-2016 V.S. Krishna & Another Versus J. Amsaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2016 V.S. Prasad Masanam Versus Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Administrative Building, Rajendranagar, Represented by its Registrar & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
30-08-2016 V.S. Krishna & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-08-2016 K. Muruganand Vs. The Managing Director, The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd., Bye pass Road, Madurai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-08-2016 Municipal Board, Rajsamand Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
11-08-2016 Indus Trust, Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer, V.S. Kumar Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-08-2016 V.S. Ekambaram & Others Versus The Appellate Authority, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2016 Sambhu Nath Nandi Versus Dr. V.S. Rathore & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-07-2016 V.S. Krithika Versus The Director, Director of Lokashikshana & Another High Court of Karnataka
11-07-2016 V.S. Mittal Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-07-2016 Valaiyakka Vs. Anitha Agnihotri, The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-07-2016 V.S. Achuthanandan Versus State of Kerala & Others Supreme Court of India
15-06-2016 V.S. Venkatachalam Versus The Director General of Police, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-06-2016 K.P. Madhu & Another Versus V.S. Nawas, Sub Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Kerala
25-05-2016 Aditya Jain Vs. Lieutenant Governor Secretariat Central Information Commission
22-04-2016 Dr. S. Vijai Vikraman Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Financial Works Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-03-2016 Shruti Das and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Sidharth Das High Court of Orissa
23-03-2016 V.S. Sridharan Versus Baby Mehala Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box