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

2003 Supreme(SC) 131

R.C.LAHOTI, BRIJESH KUMAR
Renu Devi – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Singh – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not explicitly address or hold that the executing court cannot amend or modify the decree. The focus of the judgment is primarily on the distinction between preliminary and final decrees, the validity of transfers made prior to the finalization of the decree, and the application of the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel. The decision emphasizes that the decree, once validated, relates back to the date of the original decree and that the court's authority to effectuate the partition and transfer is not hindered by the timing of the final decree's execution or engrossment. However, there is no specific discussion or ruling within the document that directly states or holds that the executing court is barred from amending or modifying the decree.


JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-Rameshwar Singh had two wives, (i) Ram Sakhi, and (ii) Dhaneshwari Devi. From the first wife Ram Sakhi, Rameshwar Singh has a son, namely, Mahendra Singh. From Dhaneshwari Devi Rameshwar Singh has another son, namely, Suresh Prasad. Mahendra Singh has four sons, namely, Dilip, Pradeep, Rajesh and Rakesh. Suresh Prasad has two sons, namely, Ranjan and Raj Kumar. The family had substantial landed property. A suit for partition was filed by Suresh Prasad and his two sons, Ranjan and Raj Kumar (referred to as Group-1 for the sake of convenience) impleading Rameshwar Singh and Dhaneshwari Devi as defendants 1 and 2 ( Group-2 for convenience) and Mahendra Singh, Dilip, Pradeep, Rajesh and Rakesh as defendants 3 to 7 ( Group-3 for convenience). The suit for partition though initially contested, ended into a compromise based whereon a compromise decree was passed on 13.2.1978.

2. A perusal of the compromise application dated 11.1.1978 shows that three schedules of the property were drawn up. Schedule No.1 sets out full description of the property which Group-1 got in the share. Schedule No. 2 sets out full description of the landed property and houses which f































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