SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 134

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY, P.VENKATARAMA REDDI, ARIJIT PASAYAT
Radhika Devi – Appellant
Versus
Bajrangi Singh – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellant has instituted Partition Suit No. 24/88 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad for partition of certain properties. Respondents 16 to 20 herein filed written statement on June 15, 1988 wherein they pleaded that Ramdeo Singh had executed and registered a gift deed in their favour on July 28, 1978 bequeathing the properties covered thereunder. They became owners of those lands and the appellant is bound by the same. Pending the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC on November 11, 1992 seeking declaration that the gift deed was obtained by the respondents illegally and fraudulently and, therefore, it was ineffective and does not bind the appellant. Though the trial Court by order dated November 24, 1992 allowed the petition, the High Court in Revision No. 1657/92 by order dated August 13,1993 allowed the petition and set aside the order directing amendment of the plaint. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. Shri S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant had no knowledge of the execution of the gift deed by Ramdeo Singh and by






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top