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

1954 Supreme(Raj) 28

WANCHOO, MODI
Heeralal – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Sumerchand, for Appellants; Ugamraj, for Respondents

Wanchoo, C. J.-This is a first appeal by Heeralal and Hansraj against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu.

2. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by Mahadeo, Tarachand and Rameshwar. Their case was that they had 3/4ths share in certain property situate in Sujangarh and that this share was not liable to be attached in the decree obtained by Heeralal and Hansraj defendant appellants against Ladhuram and his son Jairam. The defendants had attached one house and half share in another in Sujangarh in execution of the decree which they had obtained against Laduram and his son Jairam on the 31st October, 1936. The plaintiffs case was that 3/4ths share in one house and 1/2 of the attached share in the other house were not liable to be attached as the plaintiffs had 3/4ths share in the entirely of both the houses. The plaintiffs based their case on the following pedigree—

Balooram



Binjraj Nanagram (died sonless)



Jagannath Laduram (Deft.) Mahadeo (Pltf.1) Gordhan



Jairam (Deft.) Ghanshyam Doongar Ram Rameshwar

(Went in

Adoption)

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that the two houses in dispute were ancestral property coming on in their family from the time













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