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

1951 Supreme(All) 222

V. BHARGAVA, MALIK, KIDWAI
Krishna Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Babban – Respondent


Advocates:
R.N. Shukla, for Appellants; M.P. Srivastava, for Respondent.

Judgement

Malik, CJ. :- This case has been referred to a larger Bench by reason of a conflict of opinion between a decision of the Oudh Chief Court in Ram Dal v. Suraj Bux, 1948 Oudh W. N. 13 and of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Ran Bijai Prasad Singh v. Sarjoo Singh, AIR (34) 1947 All 188. After having been given the facts, however, we are of opinion that the point does not arise and this appeal must fail on another ground.

2. A short pedigree will be helpful in under-standing the facts of the case. It runs as follows :

The property belonged to a joint family consisting of Umed Singh, Sheoraj Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Umed Singh died and then Chandrapal Singh died with the result that Sheoraj Singh was left as the sole surviving owner of the property; but the name of Indrana Kuar, widow of Chandrapal Singh was mutated over half of the property by way of consolation. On Sheorajs death, the property came to his son Rampal Singh but, Rampal Singh having died while he was a minor, the property came to his mother. Smt. Tejo Kuar. In 1934, Smt. Tejo Kuar and Smt. Indrana Kuar surrendered the estate to Smt. Shyam Kuar, daughter of Sheoraj Singh Shyam Kuar applied under the Encumbered Es






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