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

2016 Supreme(All) 610

HARSH KUMAR
RAM RATI – Appellant
Versus
KESHAV – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
R.K. Ojha for the Appellants; K.N. Misra and Vineet Kumar Singh for the Respondent.

Judgement Key Points

What is the effect of prior knowledge of an impugned sale-deed on the maintainability of a cancellation suit under CPC S.100, Order XLI R.22? What is the validity of a sale-deed executed by a vendee exceeding the vendor’s share when the vendor held only a half share in the property? Whether a sale-deed void-ab-initio can be ignored or requires cancellation, and how limitation operates for cancellation of such a deed in a suit by co-sharers?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the effect of prior knowledge of an impugned sale-deed on the maintainability of a cancellation suit under CPC S.100, Order XLI R.22?

What is the validity of a sale-deed executed by a vendee exceeding the vendor’s share when the vendor held only a half share in the property?

Whether a sale-deed void-ab-initio can be ignored or requires cancellation, and how limitation operates for cancellation of such a deed in a suit by co-sharers?


JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate and Shri Vineet Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent.

2. The present Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff against judgement and decree passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1991 (Keshav Singh v. Ramratti Devi and another) and connected Appeal No. 123 of 1991 (Ramratti and another v. Keshav Singh) by which allowing Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1991, and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1991, the judgement and decree dated 2.8.1991 passed by Trial Court was set aside (by which Civil Suit No. 333 of 1991 filed by plaintiffs/appellants for cancellation of sale-deed was partly decreed in respect of ½ share and partly dismissed in respect of rest half share in the house in suit) and suit of plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal.

3. The brief facts relating to the case are that the appellants Ram Ratti Devi and Smt. Bechani filed Civil Suit No. 333 of 1980 in the Court of Additional Munsiff, Gorakhpur for obtaining a decree for cance






























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