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

1958 Supreme(MP) 34

B.K.CHATURVEDI, M.HIDAYATULLAH, T.P.NAIK
LUKAI, KATIKRAM – Appellant
Versus
NIRANJAN DAYARAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.R.Choubey, RAMA GUPTA, Y.P.Verma

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the defendants who are respectively a widow and the transferee from that widow. The transferee, Hariram, is the father of Mst. Lukai, the first appellant. By a- registered sale deed, dated 20-5-1949, Mst. Lukai sold two fields Nos. 409 and 476, total area 4. 62 acres, of mouza Kaehhar, tahsil kharsia, district Raigarh, to Hariram out of 12 old acres of land inherited by her from her husband Katikram. The slit was brought for a declaration by the present respondents that the transfer was not binding on them after the widow's death.

( 2 ) THE suit had a chequered career in the Courts below, the trial Court dismissing it and the first appellate Court decreeing it. According to the first appellate Court, there was no proof of legal necessity nor was any case set up to prove it. The learned appellate Judge, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs claim. The two defendants thereupon appealed.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act No. XXX Of 1956) came to be passed. The learned counsel for the appellants therefore abandoned the original case, knowing that the second appeal was concluded by a finding of fact. He based his case








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