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

1993 Supreme(SC) 610

M.M.PUNCHHI, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Deokabai – Appellant
Versus
Uttam – Respondent


Advocates:
J.S.VAD, MANOJ VAD, R.P.VADHVANI, RAJIV B.MASODKAR, S.B.VAD

JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated July 29, 1986 by a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 69 of 1983 arising in First Appeal No. 125 of 1982.

2. The appellant herein Deokabai is an aged widow residing in a portion of a house with her daughter and grandchildren. On January 18, 1979 she entered into an agreement to sell that portion of the house in her possession with Uttam, the respondent. The total sale consideration was fixed at Rs 48,000 out of which Rs 5,000 was paid to her as earnest money. The agreement for sale was reduced to writing. It contained an important term to the following effect (as translated by us, the original being in Hindi):

"Before registration of the sale deed of this house in your name, permission of the competent authority, Nagpur, is necessary. Therefore, I shall immediately take steps to obtain the permission. After the date of getting the permission from the competent authority, when I would get another suitable house then I would get the sale deed of this house registered in your name.

3. It appears that on January 19, 1979, the day following the day of the








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