Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Hi-Tech Heritage Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Krishna Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property ownership and transfer details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments regarding validity of property transfers (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. procedural directions and next steps (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
[F.A No. 77 of 2023 and F.A. No. 44 of 2023]
1. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in all the cases, the plaintiffs are the same and the property involved in the case is also one and the same.
2. The last purchaser of the property in all the cases is the same.
3. He has submitted that there is a chain of transfer and the last purchaser is the second purchaser of the property.
4. He submits that the property stood recorded in the name of Algu Ram and Jogeshwar Ram and there was no partition between the two; the share of Jogeshwar Ram devolved upon his death on three brothers namely Balmiki Singh, Tarak Nath Singh and Baij Nath Singh and thus, half of the total property devolved upon the three brothers together and consequently each one of them got one-third in half of the property.
5. He further submits that Algu Ram expired leaving behind his one brother Radha Krishna Singh who had one son namely Rameshwar Singh and Ramesh
The court examined the legitimacy and validity of property transfer documents, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and relationships in establishing rightful ownership.
The court affirmed the validity of a power of attorney and subsequent sale of property, rejecting claims of ancestral rights that conflicted with established ownership documents.
Agreement to sell – Co-owner alone is not competent to transfer entire property without getting his share determined and demarcated so as to bind other co-owners.
In joint family property disputes, a guardian may transact on behalf of minors without court sanction, provided sales serve family interests.
The burden of proof lies on the Plaintiff to establish the properties as joint family property and the purchase of specific items from joint family income. The Plaintiff is bound by the acts of the 1....
Co-owner not party to sale deed need not cancel it to claim partition of undivided share in joint family property.
The main legal point established is the application of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, the exclusion of contrary evidence, and the principles of Hindu Law regarding co-parcenary property and....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
