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

1969 Supreme(SC) 137

S.M.SIKRI, K.S.HEGDE, R.S.BACHAWAT
Amritsagar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Sudesh Beharilal – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellant :K.A. Ganai, Advocate.

Judgment

HEGDE, J.: The only question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether the suit from which this appeal has arisen is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943. The trial Court answered that question in the affirmative but the High Court has taken a contrary view. Hence this appeal.

2. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows :

3. One Krishen Gopal had lease-hold rights in the suit properties. After the death of the aforesaid Krishen Gopal dispute arose between Jawala Prashad, the father of the appellants and Banwari Lal Verma, the father of the respondents as to the title of the suit properties. Each one of them claimed that those properties had been gifted to him by Krishen Gopal. As a result of this dispute Jawala Prashad instituted on January 20, 1943, Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943 against Banwari Lal Verma claiming possession of the suit properties on the strength of the alleged gift in his favour. In defence Banwari Lal Verma pleaded that those properties had been gifted to him by Krishen Gopal. The principal issue that arose for decision in that suit was whether the suit prope







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