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

2006 Supreme(SC) 1193

MARKANDEY KATJU, S.B.SINHA
Utha Moidu Haji – Appellant
Versus
Kuningarath Kunhabdulla – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—The first defendant in the suit is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17th June, 1998, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No. 8/1991.

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. One Kunhahammad was the owner of the property in question. He died in 1960 leaving behind the second defendant as his widow and defendants 3 to 8 as also the plaintiff of the suit are his children. The land in question was purported to have been sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 8, not only on their own behalf but also on behalf of the plaintiffs, by a registered sale deed dated 30.8.1963, in favour of the father of the first defendant Moosa Haji. It is not in dispute that Moosa Haji was father of defendant No. 2 i.e. maternal grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 to 8. In the said deed of sale, plaintiff was represented by his father - defendant No. 4.

3. Moosa Haji sold half share in the said purchased property, in favour of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 2.5.1970. As noticed hereinbefore the appellant before us is son of the said Moosa Haji. By reason of a partit

































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