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

2010 Supreme(All) 949

SANJAY MISRA
SRI RAM – Appellant
Versus
RAM KISHAN – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Dhruv Narayana for the Appellant; B.N. Srivastava, Ajay Kumar for the Opposite Parties.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 31.7.1978 passed in Civil Appeal No. 253 of 1976 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.9.1976 passed in O.S. No. 73 of 1974, ‘Sri Ram and another v. Ram Krishna and another’, by the Ist Additional Munsif, Kannauj.

2. Sri Dhruva Narain, learned counsel has submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is : Whether the second paragraph of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to the facts of the case?

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and injunction against the transferee from interfering or seeking possession over the house in question. The Trial Court as also the First Appellate Court found that transfer of one half share was made by the descendants of Bheema who were defendants No. 2 to 7 and other half share belonged to the plaintiffs No. 1 to 5 who were descendants of Narain. The Courts below found that when the descendants of Bheema had half share in the property in question they could alienate the same a




















































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