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

1917 Supreme(All) 31

TUDBALL
Chattar – Appellant
Versus
Chote – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Tudball, J. - This is a defendant's appeal and the facts out of which it has arisen are as follows:On the 24th of February 1911 when the laintiff was about 14 years of age, he and his brother Murli constituted a joint Hindu family and Musammat Radha their mother was also alive and a member thereof. The property which is now in suit together with other properties was mortgaged usufruotuary to certain mortgagees. These mortgages were old and of the time of their ancestor. On the aforementioned date Murli, the elder brother and the mother Musammat Radha, executed a sale-deed of the property now in dispute for the sum of Rs. 1,000. The money was required to the" extent of Rs. 852-8 as found by the Court below for family necessity. It was partly utilised to pay off old mortgages and release other properties and partly to pay off other debts and the expenses of the present plaintiff's marriage. According to the findings of the Courts below, the defendants have failed to prove that Rs. 147-8-0 out of the full Rs. 1,000 was for family necessity whatsoever. The defendant vendee who is the appellant before me, then started to build a well on which he claims to have spent the Sum of R

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