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

1954 Supreme(Raj) 101

WANCHOO, DAVE
Siremal – Appellant
Versus
Kantilal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sumerchand, for Appellants; Magraj, for Respondent

Wanchoo, C.J.—This is appeal by siremal and other against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Pali.

2. A suit was brought by Kantilal plaintiff respondent against Siremal and others for pre-emption of a house sold by Takhatmal defendant respondent to Siremal and his three sons for Rs. 9,001/-. The plaintiff appellant is the minor son of Takhatmal vendor. The case of the plaintiff was that he was living separate from his father, and was not a member of the joint family with his father, and the house was not joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed pre-Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an appeal by Sire- eruption under the second clause to sec. 3 of mal and others against the judgment and the Marwar Pre-emption Act of 1922.

3. The suit was resisted by the vendees defendants, and their case was that the plain tiff was a member of the joint Hindu family along with his father, and that the house sold was joint family property belonging to the vendor and the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff was not entitled to pre-empt as the sale was made by the manager and Karta of the family on behalf of himself and his minor son.It was also urged that the plaintiff had filed this suit





















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