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

1958 Supreme(AP) 155

MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI
Maidi Bhikashmiah – Appellant
Versus
Venugopalrao – Respondent


AHMED ANSARI, J.

( 1 ) THE two appellants are the plaintiffs, whose suit to recover possession of lands bearing S. Nos. 1035 and 1063 in Dharmapur village has been dismissed by both the Courts. The claim was filed against three persons; but the second and third defendants were mere servants of the first defendant, who is the real contestant in the case. The plaint was originally one for declaration and for injunction; but the possession of the properties was given to the 1st defendant under an order of the Revenue Minister which is dated 8-11-1952 and thereafter the plaintiffs have added the relief for the properties being delivered to them. In order to appreciate the several arguments urged in the appeal, it is necessary to state first certain admitted and proved facts in the case.

( 2 ) THE mother of the 1st appellant had sold the lands to one Viswanathani in 1330 Fasli (1920-21); when the 1st appellant was a minor. She had then executed a document transferring the lands in consideration of Rs. 95 which amount was mentioned as being due to the purchaser. Ex. 9 is the certified copy of the sale deed whose original is alleged to have been lost on Khurdad 11, 1346 Fasli ( 15/04/1937










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