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

1959 Supreme(MP) 241

G.P.BHUTT, T.P.NAIK, T.C.SHRIVASTAVA
MAHABIR PRASAD RAMDHIN – Appellant
Versus
SAMAROO KALIRAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.P.SEN, R.K.VERMA

SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant Mahabir Prasad preferred this appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of Tare J. in Second Appeal No. 163 of 1954.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to certain occupancy fields, which were held by two brothers Kaliram and Maniram jointly. In the year 1939 they sold them by two separate sale-deeds (Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2) to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 1,260/- and Rs. 73/- respectively. These sale-deeds are not registered. Respondent Samaroo is the son of Kaliram. After the sale to the appellant, Samaroo and Mst. Ghasin, widow of Maniram, applied to the Revenue Courts under Section 13 of the C. P. Tenancy Act, 1920, for being placed in possession of the suit lands on the allegation that the sales in question were in contravention of Section 12 ibid. Mst. Ghasin did not prosecute the proceedings, but Samaroo fought the matter upto the Board of Revenue. The Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and finally the Board of Revenue all held that Samaroo was entitled to possession of the fields. Their possession was accordingly delivered to him on 12-11-1949, i. e. ten years after the dispute started. During all













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