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

1985 Supreme(MP) 166

S.AWASTHY, C.P.SEN
RAMLAKHAN – Appellant
Versus
PAMMA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.P.TIWARI, RAVISH CHANDRA AGARWAL

C. P. SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is challenging the order of the Collector in appeal affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, allowing the respondent No. 1's application under S. 5 of the M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Hadapne Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the (Act)) and setting aside the sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by the respondent No. 1 as being a prohibited transaction of loan.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Pamma is a cultivator of village Satnur, Tahsil and District Chhindwara. By registered sale deed dated 26-5-1966, he and his wife Shyambati sold 8,11 acres with a house and well out of Khasra Nos. 110/1 and 111, total area 39. 85 acres, to the petitioner Ramlakhan for Rs. 12,500/ -. The lands are unirrigated. On the same day the petitioner executed an Ikrarnama agreeing to reconvey the land if the amount is repaid within one year. The land was duly mutated in the name of petitioner. On 4-4-1981, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under S. 5 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, alleging that it was a pro






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