NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS
Aarati Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Shanti Lata Mishra – Respondent
The case involves a suit by Shanti Lata Mishra (plaintiff, mother of deceased Sandeep Mishra) against Aarati Mishra (defendant 1, widow) for declaration of equal shares (under Sections 8 & 10, Hindu Succession Act, 1956) in intestate's immovable property (suit house/land) and movables, partition, injunction, and voiding a sale deed executed by defendant 1 to defendants 2 & 3. (!) (!) (!) (!) Trial court partly decreed equal half shares in suit properties, voided sale deed to extent of plaintiff's share, but rejected preferential purchase right under Section 22 HSA. (!) (!)
Defendants appealed challenging ownership findings and sale validity; plaintiff cross-appealed for Section 22 right. (!) (!) (!) High Court dismissed appeals, allowed cross-appeal: confirmed suit house as self-acquired by deceased (sale deeds Ex. D/1 & D/2 in his name; defendant 1 failed to prove joint ownership via financial contributions); equal Class-I heir shares upheld; defendants 2 & 3 not bona fide purchasers (no public notice, aware of litigation via mediator, pendency since 2000); Section 22 violated (no notice to co-heir of transfer intent). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Cross-appeal within limitation. (!) (!)
Plaintiff's heirs granted preferential right to buy defendant 1's half share for Rs.4 lakhs (per sale deed value); defendant 1 to execute sale deed; defendants 2&3 may recover from defendant 1. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure- A/1) passed by learned Ninth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 13A/2008 (Smt. Shantilata Mishra v. Smt. Aarati Mishra & others) whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of declaration, partition, separate possession to the extent of half share and also for grant of permanent injunction against appellant No. 1 has been partly allowed by the trial Court holding that (i) plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share on the immovable property mentioned at Schedule-A of the plaint as well as on the house constructed over it. (ii) the movable property i.e. old Maruti Car and motor cycle mentioned at Schedule-B of the plaint, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have equally share (iii) prayer for payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- as well as half of the profit amounting to Rs. 10,000/- by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff i
Corporation of City of Bangalore v. Juleka Bee & others
Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by Lrs.
Hari Steel & General Industries Limited v. Daljit Singh & others
Himani Alloys Limited v. Tata Steel Limited
Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah
Kali Prasad Agarwall & others v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & others
Kali Prasad v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip & Others
Madan Lal & others v. Braham Dass & others AIR 2008 HP 71
Mahadev Govind Charge & others v. Special Lad Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi
Mohd. Kareemuddin Khan (Died) & others v. Syed Azam (1997) 2 ALT 625
Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors.
Ram Pyare v. Ram Narain & others
Rangamal v. Kuppuswami & another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.