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

1964 Supreme(Raj) 13

BHARGAVA
Nandkishore – Appellant
Versus
Shrinath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.P. Gupta, for Appellants; M.L. Joshi, for Respondents 1 & 2

BHARGAVA, J—.This civil second appeal arises out of a suit for preemption.

2. The suit property was sold by Naraindas on his own behalf and as guardian of his minor sons Nandkishore and Satnarain for a sum of Rs. 600/- on 19th December, 1956 by means of a registered sale deed in favour of Madanmohan respondent No. 3. Shrinarain and Samrathmal filed a suit for pre-emption on the ground that they were co-sharers in the chowk, staircase and entrance of the suit house. Naraindas and his minor son Nandkishore were also impleaded as defendants in the suit.

3. The suit| was contested by all the defendants. One of the pleas raised by Nandkishore in his written statement was that the sale of the suit property by his father Naraindas was without any legal necessity and was not binding on his share. Madanmohan vendee stated that after purchasing the property he had spent Rs. 656/11/- in its improvement which he was entitled to get in case the plaintiffs were allowed to pre-empt the property. In reply to the plaintiffs allegation that the real price for which the property was purchased was Rs. 400/-. He stated that actually Rs. 600/- the price entered in the sale deed was paid.

4. Before the inst
















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