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

1958 Supreme(MP) 240

M.HIDAYATULLAH, K.L.PANDEY
HABIB MIYAN – Appellant
Versus
MAHEMUD MIR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.RAZAK, L.G.R.DESALVA, S.C.Dubey

M. HIDAYATULLAH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under the Letters Patent is against the Judgment of Kotval J, in second appeal No. 371 of 1950 dated 16th March 1956 and with the leave of the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage (Ext. P-1) executed on 14th December 1927. By that document a house was conditionally sold to the respondent and it was one of the terms in the document that within six years if the consideration was repaid the property would be reconveyed to the vendor. After the expiry of the six years' period, on 16th December 1933, the defendant respondent served a notice upon the vendor saying that inasmuch as the stipulated condition of repurchase had been broken, the vendee had become full owner of the property and no right was outstanding in the vendor. As a result of this notice, it appears that parties negotiated further and on 1st February 1935 the vendee paid a further sum of Rs. 100/- to the vendor in lieu whereof the vendor relinquished all rights in the property in favour of the vendee. That document was not registered. All along the vendee was in possession,

( 3 ) THE contention of the vendor was that the document (Ex. P








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