2008(2) JLJ 327
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
Amar Bahadur Singh v. Devendra Singh and another
Second Appeal No. 645 of 2007 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 18.7.2007.
The pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint is that vide partition deed dated 21.6.1972 there was a partition in the family and by this document of partition plaintiff Amar Bahadur Singh and defendant No.2 Sheetala Prasad Singh, who are real brothers, partitioned the property mentioned in the partition deed and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 that the property shall be sold and the sale price will be divided in two shares equally. However, the suit property which is a house could not be sold and, therefore, the suit property is the joint property of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in which he is having 1/2 share. [Para 3
In the written statement filed by defendant No.1 Devendra Singh, it has been specifically pleaded by him in paras 1 to 3 that the suit property is not the joint Hindu family property of the parties, indeed, it is his self-acquired property. In para 5 of the written statement, he has specifically pleaded that suit property was purchased by defendant No.1 from his own earning and from the funds gifted to his wife by her parents and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property.
Learned trial Court after framing necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that the suit property is not the property of joint Hindu family but the same is self-acquired property of defendant No.1 Devendra Singh and eventually dismissed the suit. The appeal which was filed by plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by learned first appellate Court. [Paras 4 & 5
Held: The question is that whether for colateral purpose Ex.P1 can be read. The contention of learned counsel is that after execution of document EX.P-1 since plaintiff is also possessing the suit property, therefore, EX.P-1 can be read and used for colateral purpose in order to ascertain his possession. It be seen that there is no document on record in the order to show that Ex.P1 was ever implemented. The plaintiff did not file any Municipal record in order to show that suit property is jointly owned or even after the execution of Ex.P-1, in the Municipal record, it continued in the name of original owner. The plaintiff is real brother of defendant No.2 and uncle of defendant No.1. Though in the written statement it has been denied by defendant No.1 that plaintiff is residing in the suit house nor Sheetala Prasad (defendant No.2) is residing in it. But if the plaintiff was permitted to reside in the suit house by defendant No.1, ipso facto would not confer any right to him in the suit property. [Para 12
(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- Ss.54 and 55 -- sale-deed duly registered -- signature of seller proved -- source of consideration paid also proved -- sale-deed duly proved. [Para 13
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.100 -- second appeal -- judgments of Courts below based on pure finding of facts -- cannot be interfered with even if grossly erroneous -- even before amendment of 1976, scope was limited. AIR 1963 SC 302, (2000)9 SCC 505 and (2007) 1 SCC 546 followed. [Paras 14 & 15
(4) Appeal -- a new case based on facts -- cannot be made out in appeal. AIR 1970 SC 839 followed. [Para 11
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.100 -- second appeal-- substantial question of law -- what is and what is not -- proper test for determination.
The words "substantial question of law" have not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure but the said expression has been used in the Constitution. The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the right of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by the Supreme Court or by Privy Councilor by Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calis for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law. AIR 1962 SC 1314 and (2005)2 SCC 500 followed. [Para 16
(6) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.100 -- substantial questions of law so far recognized are thus:
(i) Question of law on which there is conflict of judicial opinion and is not finally decided by Supreme Court, Privy Councilor Federal Court. AIR 1962 SC 1314;
(ii) Finding which has been arrived at by Courts below without any evidence on record. (1999)3 SCC 722 and 2000 RN 141 (SC);
(iii) Disregard or non-consideration of relevant or admissible evidence. AIR 1992 SC 123 and (2000)1 SCC 434;
(iv) Taking into consideration irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. (2000)7 SCC 60, AIR 1999 SC 3067, (1999)3 SCC 722 and (2000) 1 SCC 434;
(v) Misconstruction of evidence or document. AIR 1994 SC 532 and (1999)4 SCC 262;
(vi) Interpretation on construction of material documents. (1998)2 SCC 295;
(vii) Question of admissibility of evidence. (1999)3 SCC 722 and AIR 1998 SC 179;
(viii) Inference from or legal effect of proved or admitted facts;
(ix) Disposal of appeal by first appellate Court by allowing application to adduce additional evidence by one party without giving opportunity of rebuttal to the other party;
(x) New plea of pure question of law going to the root of the matter;
(xi) Rejection of admissible evidence on flimsy ground. AIR 1997 SC 1906 and (2000) 1 SCC 434;
(xii) Gross miscarriage of justice. 2000 RN 141 (SC) and 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 418;
(xiii) Biased approach of the Courts below. AIR 1998 SC 179;
(xiv) Reversal of finding by first appellate Court. (1998)2 SCC 295;
(xv) Perverse finding recorded by Courts below. (2000)5 SCC 652 and (2000)6 SCC 120;
(xvi) Inconsistent and contradictory finding of the Court. (2000)5 SCC 562;
(xvii) When appeal is decided only on equitable ground and without application of mind. (2000) 10 SCC 248;
(xviii) When Court has no jurisdiction. (1999)3 SCC 722. [Para 17
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.100 -- following questions cannot be recognised as substantial question of law:
(i) Where question has already been decided by Privy Council, Federal Court, Supreme Court or even by larger Bench of the High Court. (1999)3 SCC 722;
(ii) Concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below or correct appreciation of evidence. (2000) 10 SCC 244 and (2000)9 SCC 384;
(iii) Finding of fact recorded by first appellate Court on cogent evidence and material or record. (1992)2 SCC 507;
(iv) Where on facts and evidence two views are possible. (1999)3 SCC 722;
(v) When new case is sought to be made in second appeal not going to the root of the matter. (1998)6 SCC 358 and 1995 Supp.(1) SCC 202;
(vi) When new plea is raised which is either based on fact or on mixed question of law and fact. AIR 1946 PC 97 and AIR 1977 SC 2262;
(vii) When question sought to be raised is too general and omnibus in nature; or is a mere question of law. (2000)9 SCC 276;
(viii) Where inference as to finding of fact has been drawn on the basis of evidence and material on record. (2000)7 SCC 409;
(ix) Whether the finding of fact has been attacked on ground that it is erroneous or even grossly erroenous. AIR 1963 SC 302 and (2000)9 SCC 505;
(x) Where High Court feels that the reasoning given by first appellate Court was not proper. (1999)4 SCC 350. [Para 10
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss. 103 and 100 -- power of High Court hearing second appeal -- it can determine any issue necessary for disposal of appeal-- S.103 is in nature of proviso and explanation to S.100. [Para 19
¼1½ jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1908 && /kkjk 49 && foHkktu ds vfHkdfFkr nLrkost ij dHkh dksbZ dkjZokbZ ugha dh xbZ && i{kdkj fudV ds ukrsnkj && Hkys&gh edku ds ,d Hkkx esa oknh dk fuokl gks] vf/kdkj iznÙk ugha gksrkA
okni= esa oknh dk vfHkopu gS fd foHkktu foys[k fnukad 21-6-1972 }kjk dqVqac esa foHkktu gks x;k Fkk vkSj foHkktu ds bl nLrkost }kjk oknh vej cgknqj flag rFkk izfroknh Ø-2 ‘khryk izlkn flag us] tks nksuksa lxs HkkbZ gSa] foHkktu foys[k esa mfYyf[kr laifÙk dk foHkktu dj fy;k vkSj oknh rFkk izfroknh Ø-2 ds e/; ;g djkj gks x;k fd laifÙk dk foØ; fd;k tk,xk rFkk foØ; dh jde nks Hkkx esa cjkcj&cjkcj foHkkftr dj yh tk,xhA rFkkfi] okn laifÙk tks ,d edku gS] foØ; ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj blfy,] okn laifÙk oknh vkSj izfroknh Ø-2 dh la;qDr laifÙk gs ftleas vk/kk va‘k oknh dk gSA ¼iSjk 3
izfroknh Ø-1 nsosanz flag }kjk Qkby fd, x, fyf[kr mÙkj esa mlds }kjk iSjk 1 ls 3 esa ;g fofufnZ"V :i ls vfHkopu fd;k x;k gS fd okn laifÙk i{kdkjksa ds vfoHkDr fganw dqVqac dh laifÙk ugha gS] okLro esa mldh LokftZr laifÙk gSA fyf[kr mÙkj ds iSjk 5 esa mlus fofufnZ"Vr% vfHkopu fd;k gS fd okn laifÙk izfroknh Ø-1 us vius vtZu ls vkSj viuh iRuh dks iRuh ds ekrk&firk }kjk migkj esa nh xbZ fuf/k ls Ø; dh xbZ Fkh blfy, okn laifÙk esa oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj] gd vkSj fgr ugha gSA
vko‘;d fook|d fojfpr djus vkSj i{kdkjksa dk lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i‘pkr~ fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd okn laifÙk vfoHkDr fganw dqVqac dh laifÙk ugha gS vfirq og izfroknh Ø-1 nsosanz flag dh LokftZr laifÙk gS] vkSj varr% ekeyk [kkfjt dj fn;kA oknh }kjk Qkby dh xbZ vihy vk{ksfir fu.kZ; vkSj fMØh }kjk fo}ku izFke vihy U;k;ky; us [kkfjt dj nhA ¼iSjk 4 ,oa 5
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iz‘u ;g gS fd D;k leFkZu ds iz;kstu ds fy, izn‘kZ ih&1 ij /;ku fn;k tk ldrk gSA fo}ku dkmUlsy dk ladFku gS fd nLrkost izn‘kZ ih&1 ds fu"iknu ds i‘pkr~ D;ksafd okn laifÙk ij oknh dk dCtk Hkh gS blfy,] mlds dCts ds vfHkfu‘p;u ds leFkZu ds iz;kstu ds fy, izn‘kZ ih&1 ij /;ku fn;k tk ldrk gS vkSj mls iz;qDr fd;k tk ldrk gSA /;ku fn;k tk, fd ;g nf‘kZr djus ds fy, vfHkys[kxr dksbZ nLrkost ugha gS fd izn‘kZ ih&1 ds fu"iknu ds i‘pkr~ Hkh uxjikfyd vfHkys[k esa ewy Lokeh ds uke ls jghA oknh] izfroknh Ø-2 dk lxk HkkbZ vkSj izfronh Ø-1 dk pkpk gSA ;|fi fyf[kr mÙkj esa izfroknh Ø-1 }kjk bldk izR;k[;ku fd;k x;k gS fd oknh okn edku esa fuokl dj jgk gS vkSj u ‘khyrk izlkn ¼izfrokn Ø-2½ gh mlesa fuokl dj jgk gSA fdarq ;fn izfroknh Ø-1 }kjk oknh dks edku esa jgus fn;k x;k Fkk rks dsoy blh dkj.k ls mls okn laifÙk esa dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrkA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 54 rFkk 55 && foØ;&foys[k lE;d~ :i ls jftLVªhd`r && foØsrk ds gLrk{kj lkfcr && lanÙk izfrQy dk lzksr Hkh lkfcr && foØ&foys[k lE;d~ :i ls lkfcrA ¼iSjk 3
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 && f}rh; vihy && fupys U;k;ky;ksa ds fu.kZ; fo‘kq) rF;ksa ds fu"d"kZ ij vk/kkfjr && ?kksj =qfViw.kZ gksA ij Hkh gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrk && 1976 ds la‘kks/ku ds iwoZ Hkh O;kfIr lhfer FkhA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 302] ¼2000½9 ,l lh lh 505 rFkk ¼2007½1 ,l lh lh 546 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼4½ vihy && rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr rFkk i{kdFku && vihy esa ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1970 ,l lh 839 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 && f}rh; vihy && fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u && u;k gS vkSj D;k ugha gS && vo/kkj.kk ds fy, leqfpr dlkSVhA
‘‘kCn ^^fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u** flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk eas ifjHkkf"kr ugha gS fdarq mDr vfHkO;fDr lafo/kku esa iz;qDr dh xbZ gSA fdlh ekeys esa mBk;k x;k fof/k dk iz‘u lkjoku gS ;k ugha ;g vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, leqfpr dlkSVh ;g gksxh fd D;k og lk/kkj.k yksd egRo dk gS ;k D;k blls izR;{kr% vFkok lkjoku :i ls i{kdkjksa dk vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksrk gS vkSj ;fn gksrk gS rks D;k ;g bl vFkZ esa [kqyk iz‘u gS fd D;k mPpre U;k;ky; ;k fizoh dkmfUly vFkok la?kh; U;k;ky; }kjk vafre :i ls fu.khZr ugha gS ;k og dfBukbZ ls eqDr ugha gS vFkok mlesa vuqdYih n`f"Vdks.kksa ij foospu okaNuh; gSA ;fn og iz‘u loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr gks pqdk gS ;k og iz‘u vo/kkfjr djus ds fy, ykxw fd, tkus okys lk/kkj.k fl)kar lqLFkkfir gSa vkSj og fl)kar ykxw djus ek= dk iz‘u gS vFkok ;g fd fd;k x;k vfHkokd~ Li"Vr% fujFkZd gS] rc fof/k dk lkjoku~ iz‘u ugha gksxkA , vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1314 rFkk ¼2005½2 ,l lh lh 500 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16
¼6½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 && vc rd ekU; fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz‘u bl izdkj gSa %
¼i½ fof/k dk iz‘u ftl ij U;kf;d jk; esa }a} gS vkSj ftldk mPpre U;k;ky;] fizoh dkmfUly ;k la?kh; U;k;ky; }kjk vafre :i ls fofu‘p; ugha fd;k x;k gSA [, vkb vkj 1962 ,l lh 1314](
¼ii½ fdlh vfHkys[kxr lk{; ds fcuk fupys U;k;ky; }kjk fudkyk x;k dksbZ fu"d"kZ [¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 722 rFkk 2000 jk fu 141 ¼mPpre U;k-½](
[¼iii½ lqlaxr ;k xzkg~; lk{; dh vuo/kkurk ;k ml ij fopkj ugha fd;k tkuk [, vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 123 rFkk ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 434](
[¼iv½ vlaxr ;k vxzkg~; lk{; ij fopkj fd;k tkuk [¼2000½7 ,l lh lh 60] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 3067] ¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 722 rFkk ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 434](
[¼v½ lk{; ;k nLrkost dk xyr vFkkZUo;u [, vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 532 rFkk ¼1999½4 ,l lh lh 262](
¼vi½ rkfRod nLrkostksa dk fuoZpu vFkok vFkkZUo;u [¼1998½2 ,l lh lh 295](
¼vii½ lk{; dh xzkg~;rk dk iz‘u [¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 722 rFkk , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 179](
¼viii½ lkfcr ;k Lohd`r rF;ksa ls fudkyk tkus okyk fu"d"kZ ;k mudk fof/k izHkko(
¼ix½ izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ,d i{k dk vfrfjDr lk{; is‘k fd, tkus dk vkosnu eatwj dj vU; i{k dks [kaMu dk volj fn, fcuk vihy dk fuiVkjk(
¼x½ ekeys ds ewy dks izHkkfor djus okys fo‘kq) fof/k ds iz‘u ij u;k vfHkokd~(
¼xi½ lkjghu vk/kkj ij xzkg~; lk{; dk vxzg.k [, vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1906 rFkk ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 434](
¼xii½ ?kksj U;k;gkfu [2000 jk fu 141 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 1995 lIyh-¼1½ ,l lh lh 418](
¼xiii½ fupys U;k;ky;ksa dk iwokZxzgh vfHkxe [, vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 179](
¼xiv½ izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk fu"d"kZ myVk tkuk [¼1998½2 ,l lh lh 295](
¼xv½ fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkfyf[kr foi;ZLr fu"d"kZ [¼2000½5 ,l lh lh 652 rFkk ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 120](
¼xvi½ U;k;ky; dk vlaxr vkSj ijLij&fojks/kh fu"d"kZ [¼2000½5 ,l lh lh 652](
¼xvii½ tc vihy euksfu;ksx fd, fcuk] dsoy lkE;k ds vk/kkj ij fofuf‘pr dh xbZ gks [¼2000½10 ,l lh lh 248](
¼xviii½ tc U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk ugha gks [¼1993½3 ,l lh lh 722]( ¼iSjk 19
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 100 && fuEufyf[kr iz‘u fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz‘u ds :i esa ekU; ugha gSa %
¼i½ tgk¡ iz‘u igys&gh fizoh dkmfUly] la?kh; U;k;ky;] mPpre U;k;ky; vFkok mPp U;k;ky; dh c`gÙkj U;k;ihB }kjk Hkh fofuf‘pr fd;k tk pqdk gS [¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 722](
¼ii½ fupys U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkfyf[kr le:i rF;kRed fu"d"kZ ;k lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu [¼2000½10 ,l lh lh 244 rFkk ¼2000½9 ,l lh lh 384](
¼iii½ izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk rdZiw.kZlk{; vkSj lkexzh ;k vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij vfHkfyf[kr rF;kRed fu"d"kZ [¼1992½2 ,l lh lh 507](
¼iv½ tgk¡ rF;ksa vkSj lk{; ds vk/kkj ij nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko gSa [¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 722](
¼v½ tc f}rh; vihy esa ,slk u;k i{kdFku djuk pkgk x;k gS ftlls ekeys dk ewy izHkkfor ugha gksrk [¼1998½6 ,l lh lh 358 rFkk 1995 lIyh-¼1½ ,l lh lh 202](
¼vi½ tc u;k vfHkokd~ fd;k x;k gS tks rF; ij vFkok fof/k vkSj rF; ds fefJr iz‘u ij vk/kkfjr gS [, vkb vkj 1946 ih lh 97 rFkk , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2262](
¼vii½ tc mBk;k tkus okyk iz‘u vR;f/kd lk/kkj.k ;k cgqiz;kstuh; Lo:i dk gS ;k fQj dsoy fof/kd iz‘u gS [¼2000½9 ,l lh lh 276](
¼viii½ tgk¡ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ ds laca/k esa vuqkeu lk{; vkSj vfHkys[kxr lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS [¼2007½4 ,l lh lh 409](
¼ix½ tgk¡ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ ij bl vk/kkj ij vk{ksi fd;k x;k gS fd og xyr gS ;k fQj fcYdqy xyr gS [, vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 302 rFkk [¼2000½9 ,l lh lh 505](
¼x½ tgk¡ mPp U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd izFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk nh xbZ rdZ.kk mfpr ugha Fkh [¼1999½4 ,l lh lh 350]A ¼iSjk 26
¼8½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 103 rFkk 100 && f}rh; vihy lquus okys mPp U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr && vihy ds fuiVkjs ds fy, vko‘;d fdlh Hkh fook|d dk mlds }kjk vo/kkj.k fd;k tk ldrk gS && /kkjk 103 dk Lo:i /kkjk 100 ds ijarqd vkSj Li"Vhdj.k dk gSA ¼iSjk 19
1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by him before the learned first appellate Court, has also been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff-Amar Bahadur Singh filed suit for injunction and for declaration that he is the owner having half share in the suit property. The suit property is a house, description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint.
3. The pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint is that vide partition deed dated 21.6.1972 there was a partition in the family and by this document of partition plaintiff Amar Bahadur Singh and defendant No.2 Sheetala Prasad Singh, who are real brothers, partitioned the property mentioned in the partition deed and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 that the property shall be sold and the sale price will be divided in two shares equally. However, the suit property which is a house could not be old and, therefore, the suit property is the joint property of plaintiff and defendant No.2 in which he is having 1/2 share.
4. Defendant No.1 Devendra Singh who is the son of defendant No.2 filed written statement, but defendant No.2 Sheetala Prasad Singh did not file any written statement. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1 Devendra Singh, it has been specifically pleaded by him in paras 1 to 3 that the suit property is not the joint Hindu family property of the parties, indeed, it is his self-acquired property. In para 5 of the written statement, he has specifically pleaded that suit property was purchased by defendant No.1 from his own earning and from the funds gifted to his wife by her parents and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property.
5. Learned trial Court after framing necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that the suit property is not the property of joint Hindu family but the same is self-acquired property of defendant No.1 Devendra Singh and eventually dismissed the suit. The appeal which was filed by plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by learned first appellate Court.
6. In this matter, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
7. It has been vehemently contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the two Courts below by misconstruing EX.P-1 which is an acknowledgement of earlier partition, gave finding that the suit property is not the property of HUF and if that would be the position, there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The further contention of learned senior counsel is that if document EX.P-1 dated 21.6.1972 if considered in proper perspective, it would reveal that it is only an acknowledgment of the earlier partition and, therefore, it does not require any registration under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.
8. The 'alternative submission of learned senior counsel is that if the document EX.P-1 is taken to be a partition deed and even if it is not registered, it can be read and used for colateral purpose under section 49 of the Registration Act, in order to ascertain that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
9. Another contention of learned senior counsel is that defendant No.1 Devendra Singh failed to establish that the suit property is his self-acquired property and the source to purchase the suit property has also not been disclosed and proved by him and there is no connecting evidence in that regard and, therefore, two Courts below erred in substantial error or law in holding that the suit property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1.
10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. On going through document EX.P-1 which, according to learned senior counsel, is an acknowledgement of earlier partition, it is gathered that in fact this document is a partition deed and not the ack
1. Ramacandra Ayyar and another v. Ramalingam Chettiar and another = [AIR 1963 SC 302]
2. Baidyanath Bhattacharya and another v. S. Kannakar = [(2000)9 SCC 505]
3. Gurdev Kaur and others v. Kaki and others = [(2007)1 SCC 546]
5. Govindaraju v. Mariamman = [(2005)2 SCC 500]
6. Sree Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others = [(1999)3 SCC 722]
7. Rohni Prasad and others v. Kasturchand = [2000 RN 141 (SC)
9. Santakumari and others v. Lakshmi Amma Janaki Amma = (2000)7 SCC 60]
10. Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un Niswan = [AIR 1999 SC 3067]
11. Sundra Naicka Vadiyar v. Ramaswami Ayyar = [AIR 1994 SC 532]
12. Sukhdei v. Bairo = [(1999)4 SCC 262])
13. Sundra Naicka Vadiyar v. Ramaswami Ayyar = [AIR 1994 SC 532]
14. Sukhdei v. Bairo = [(1999)4 SCC 262])
15. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam (supra) and Mehrunnisa v. Visham Kumari = [(1998)2 SCC 295]
17. Major Singh v. Rattan Singh = [AIR 1997 SC 1906]
19. State of Rajasthan v. Harphool Singh = {[(2000)5 SCC 652]
20. Rajappa Hanamantha Ranoji SV. Mahadev Chiannabasappa and others = [(2000)6 SCC 120])
21. Md. Hadi Hussain v. Abdul Hamidi Choudhary and others = [(2000) 10 SCC 248]
23. Mohd. Abdul Muqtedar v. Shaikh Fakruddin and others = [(2000)9 SCC 384]
24. Smt. A.N. Kapoor v. Shrimati and Guro v. Atma Singh and others = [(1992)2 SCC 507]
25. Babu Ram v. Indra Pal Singh = [(1998)6 SCC 358]
27. Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade v. The New Mofussil Co. Ltd. and others = [AIR 1946 PC 97]
28. Smt. Chander Kali Bail and others v. Jagdish Singh Thakur and another = [AIR 1977 SC 2262]
29. K. C. Mathew & Sons and another v. A. Sulaikha Beevi and others = [(2000)9 SCC 276]
30. Thimmaiah and others v. Ningamma and another = [(2000)7 SCC 409]
31. Arumugham v. Sundarmbal and another = [(1999)4 SCC 350]
8. Sri Chand Gupta v. Gulzar Singh and another = {AIR 1992 SC 123]
22. M. Nadar Kesavan Nadar v. Narayanan Nadar Kunjan Nadar = [(2000) 10 SCC 244]
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.