Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Before Mr. Justice N.K. Mody
AMAR SINGH
Versus
BALMUKUND
S.A. No.123/1988 Of
Decided On : Jan 13,2010
Advocate - Property Dispute - M.P. Land Revenue Code, Contract Act, High Court Rules - Sections 250, 190, 23 - The court discussed the legality of an advocate purchasing a property during the pendency of appeal, the validity of the sale deed, and the compliance with High Court Rules. The court also considered the perversity of the lower Appellate Court's order.
Fact of the Case:
Deceased Raghunath Gupta filed a suit for possession of a land against the predecessors in title of the appellants, claiming to have purchased the land from Fatehsingh. The suit was dismissed, but on appeal, the judgment was set aside, and a decree was passed in favor of Raghunath Gupta.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed by Raghunath Gupta during the pendency of litigation was unlawful and void, as it violated the All India Bar Council Rules. The court also noted that the lower Appellate Court failed to consider important facts and burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: The issues included the legality of an advocate purchasing property during litigation, the validity of the sale deed, compliance with High Court Rules, and the perversity of the lower Appellate Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed executed by Raghunath Gupta during the pending litigation was unlawful and void, as it violated the All India Bar Council Rules. The court also emphasized the burden of proof under the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the original judgment dismissing the suit was restored.
N.K.Mody, J.
( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12/03/ 88 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Civil Appeal No. 12- A/81 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31/03/78 passed by Civil Judge, Class-II, Khilchipur in Civil Suit No.71-A/75 whereby the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta predecessor in title of respondents was dismissed, was set aside and a decree was passed against the appellants, the present appeal has been filed.
( 2. ) The appeal was admitted for final hearing by this Court vide order dated 27/06/88 on the following substantial questions of law:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an advocate purchasing the suit property during the pendency of appeal against the order passed under Sections 250 and 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is illegal and invalid? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sale-deed dated 23/08/1967, which was executed during the pendency of proceedings regarding the suit land is void under the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the alleged sale deed is illegal as it is against the provisions of Rule 13 of Chapter 3 Part 4-A of the High Court Rules and Orders and, therefore, illegal? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the lower Appellate Court is perverse against the facts on record and principles of law?
( 3. ) Short facts of the case are that the deceased Raghunath Gupta predecessor in title of respondents filed a suit for possession against Bapulal, Hiralal and Banshilal (all sons of Shankar) who are the predecessor in title of appellants on 25/10/72 for possession. In the suit filed by deceased Raghunath Gupta it was alleged that the land bearing survey No.999/1 measuring 0.60 hectare situated at village Jirapur Tehsil Khilchipur is owned by him as he purchased the suit property from Fatehsingh Thakur vide registered sale deed dated 23/09/67. It was alleged that Fatehsingh was the Bhumi-swami of the suit land. Further case of deceased Raghunath Gupta was that Shankar predecessor in title of the appellants initiated proceedings before the Revenue Court and claimed for mutation alleging themselves to be Shikmi of Fatehsingh. It was alleged that the said application was dismissed by SDO vide order dated 06/12/69 and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. It was alleged that Shankar who initiated the proceedings died in the year 1975. It was alleged that Bapulal Hiralal and Banshilal who are legal representatives of deceased Shankar had no right to retain the possession over the suit property. It was alleged that after acquiring the rights over the suit property by sale deed dated 23/09/67 deceased. Raghunath Gupta issued notices on 29/01/74 and asked for possession, but the notice was not replied, hence the suit was filed wherein it was prayed that it be directed that possession be handed over to the deceased Raghunath Gupta and mesne profit be awarded @ Rs.400/- per year.
( 4. ) The suit was contested by predecessor in title of appellants wherein it was denied that the suit property has been purchased by Raghunath Gupta vide sale deed dated 23/09/67. It was alleged that the sale deed has been got executed by- deceased Raghunath Gupta with an oblique motive. It was alleged that Raghunath Gupta is an Advocate and the act of deceased Raghunath Gupta to get the sale deed executed is illegal and immoral, as the deceased Raghunath Gupta was counsel of Fatehsingh. In the written statement it was alleged that Fatehsingh in his life time filed the suit against the predecessor in title of appellants for possession, in which he could not succeed. It was alleged that in the suit property no rights were left over to Fatehsingh, therefore, if any transaction is taken place, then it is of no effect. It was alleged that the suit property was leased out by previous owners
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
