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

1974 Supreme(Pat) 180

HARI LAL AGRAWAL
Samrathi – Appellant
Versus
Parasuram – Respondent


Judgment

1. The plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit for a declaration that the deed of surrender executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 (since dead) on the 1st July, 1963 (Ext. D) was invalid and inoperative. There is also a prayer for confirmation of possession in respect of the suit lands which have been described in schedule 3 at the foot of the plaint.

2. One Sajeewan Pandey had three sons, namely, Gaya Pandey, Mandil Pandey and Mathura Pandey. Defendants 2 and 3 are the descendants of the said Gaya Pandey, and defendant No. 4 of Mathura Pandey. Mandil Pandey had two sons, namely, Sheolakhan Pandey and Ram Janam Pandey who died long ago. Mostt. Bihasi, defendant No. 1, who was widow of Sheolakhan, also died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. Ram Janam had a son named Kedar Pandey, who died unmarried, and a daughter named Samrathi Devi who is the plaintiff in this case. It is not disputed that the three sons of Sajeewan Pandey bad already separated amongst themselves. The dispute in this suit is with regard to the estate of Mandil Pandey. According to the case of the plaintiff, on Sheolakhans death, her father Ramjanam Pandey being the last male holder















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