WANCHOO, MODI
Heeralal – Appellant
Versus
Mahadeo – Respondent
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
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.