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

1980 Supreme(P&H) 91

M.M.PUNCHHI
Ram Sarup – Appellant
Versus
Patto – Respondent


JudgmentJudgment

1. This regular second appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have dismissed their suit for declaration to claim that the land in dispute transferred by Shrimati Patto, defendant-respondent No. 1 (since dead and her name struck off from the array of respondents) in favour of the contesting defendant-respondent was without legal necessity, illegal and ineffective against the reversionary rights of the plaintiff-appellants. That claim is reiterated in the present appeal. Facts giving rise thereto are mentioned hereafter.

2. A parcel of land in village Tigrana Tahsil Bhiwani, District Hissar, was owned by one Gopala. On his death sometimes after 1905 but before 1914, his estate was mutated in favour of his widow Shrimati Bujhi. Gopala was a Bhardwaj Brahmin, a high caste Hindu. On 14-4-1911, the Patwari of the village recorded a mutation suggesting transference of the estate of Shrimati Bujhi in favour of her widowed daughter Shrimati Patto. It came to be recorded on her statement to the effect that she had only one daughter Shrimati Patto and who was a widow. It was further stated that from her in-laws side, there was no one to look after her.





















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