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

1963 Supreme(Ori) 88

G.K.MISRA
GUNDICHA PADHANO – Appellant
Versus
PARVATI PODHANUNI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.Patnaik, N.V.RAMDAS, P.V.Ramdas

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) JUDGMENT-DEBTORS are the appellants. In T. M. Section 181 of 1949 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur, final mortgage decree was passed on 28-8-1954. The decree was transferred in favour of one Kalu Podhan by an assignment in writing. The transferee-decree-holder exe-cuted the decree in E. P. 89 of 1955. On his death his legal representatives were substituted. Some of the transferor decree- holders filed an objection in that execution proceeding against the genuineness and the validity of the transfer. Payment of consideration under the deed of transfer was challenged. It was also asserted that the original decree-holders were konds (aboriginals --hill tribes) and that deceased Kalu Podhan, who was looking after T. M. S. 181/1949, might have utilised some blank papers containing their signatures and thumb marks for the creation of the deed of transfer without their knowledge and consent. Despite this objection, the transferee-decree-holders allowed the execution proceeding to be dismissed for default on 17-8-1956 when the Executing Court passed the following order : "the lawyer for the D. Hr. IC files memo of no instructions. The decree holder's lawyer file















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