Poona Bai vs Rajji Bai - 1977 Supreme(MP) 688

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(MP) 688

C.P.SEN
Poona Bai – Appellant
Versus
Rajji Bai – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.P. Naolekar
For the Respondent: S. Awasthy

Short Note :

The learned trial Judge found that the defendant No.1 was the married wife of Nathoodas and that Nathoodas has purchased the suit land for the plaintiff and, as such, the defendant No. 1 had no right or title to sell the suit land to the defendant No.2 and the other defendants got no valid title. As such, the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge disagreed with the finding of the trial Court that Narhoodas has purchased the suit land for the plaintiff and instead came to the conclusion that the suit land was purchased by Nathoodas for himself in the name of the plaintiff and he never intended to purchase the suit land for the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appellate Judge reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

Held : It is now well settled by decision of the Supreme Court in Surusaibalini v. Phanindra Mohan, AIR 1965 SC 1364 that the peculiarity of the English law in which there is a presumption of an advancement but as there is no such presumption in India, theory of advancement is not applicable here. The Court will presume an ostensible owner to be the real owner unless the plaintiff who seek to ass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document