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

1964 Supreme(SC) 212

J. C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
Daya Rama – Appellant
Versus
Shvam Sundari – Respondent


Advocates:
G.N.DIKSHIT, K.K.JAIN, S.K.KAPOOR, S.MURTHY

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.:

This is an appeal by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Art.133 (1)(b) of the Constitution and represents, and that is our hope, the last stage of a litigation which has lasted over forty years between the deceased respondent -- Shyam Sundari - and Mata Din, the father of the appellants.

2. The following facts are necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the very short point that arises for consideration in this appeal. The father of Shyam Sundari - the deceased respondent was one Babu Har Charan Lal. He was the owner along with his two brothers - Kanhaiya Lal and Sheo Narain, for plots 599 and 600 situated in Sisamau in Kanpur on which there existed certain petty constructions. The three brothers were separated in interest and were each entitled to a third share. Babu Har Charan Lal died in December, 1915 leaving behind him surviving his widow -- Tulsa Kunwar and an only daughter ---- Shyam Sundari. Tulsa Kunwar died on June 6, 1919 but even before her death Kanhaiya lal and Sheo Narain the two brothers of her husband, claiming a full interest in those plots, sold them to Lal Mata Din, the father of the appellants by two registered























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