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

ABDUL HAKIM KHAN
Dhannalal Brijlal – Appellant
Versus
Bhaiyalal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.M. Karkare, for Appellant;
G.P. Patankar, for Respondents.

JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, which the plaintiff brought for the possession of a house sold to him. The plaintiff purchased the house from Rajmal and. this suit is filed against Rajmal as well as Rajmal's elder brother, Dhannalal.

2. Rajmal did not enter any defence but his elder brother Dhannalal, has resisted the suit on the ground that the house in question was joint family property, that he as the elder brother was the Karta of the family, that his younger brother Rajmal (who was a mere co-parcener) had no right to sell the house.

It was also said in the written statement that the real reason for the sale of the house by Rajmal was to save it from attachment of a decree, which one Halkoo had obtained against Rajmal. The defendant, Dhannalal, however admitted his signature as an attesting witness on the sale-deed, and has also admitted that he identified his brother before the Registrar at the time of the registration of the deed.

The trial court held that the property was not joint but divided, and that in the circumstances Rajmal could have sold only half of the house and decreed the suit accordingly. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this before the





















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