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

1949 Supreme(Bom) 72

CHAGLA, GAJENDRAGADKAR
Ratilal Nathubhai – Appellant
Versus
Rasiklal Maganlal – Respondent


Advocates:
C.K. Shah - for Appellants. R.J. Thakor with B.G. Rao - for Respondents.

Judgement

Chagla, C.J. - The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sitaram Laxmanrao v. Dharmasukhram Tansukhram, 51 Bom 971 : (AIR (11) 1927 Bom 487 FB), is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Puran Chand v. Monmotho Nath, 55 IA 81 : (AIR (15) 1928 PC 38).

2. A few facts may be stated in order to understand the point of law that has been debated at the bar. The plaintiffs are vendees of a certain property and the property was sold to them by one Yinodrai and Sumantrai who executed a power of attorney on 20th March 1946, in favour of one Indulal, and it was in pursuance of this power of attorney that Indulal executed the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, who were the tenants of the vendors, challenged the plaintiffs title to the property in the suit which the plaintiffs filed for ejectment of the defendants and for possession of the property.

3. The contention of Mr. Shah on behalf of the appellants is that the conveyance has not been properly registered and there is no title in the plaintiffs because there is no proper admission of execution under S. 34, Registration Act. Sect









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