REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAHESH PRASAD Appellant

V/S

MT.MUNDAR Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

INDRA NARAIN V. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL [REFERRED TO]
U.P. GOVERNMENT V.MANMOHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD V.TULSA KUAR [REFERRED TO]
DAN KUAR V. SARLA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BHUSHAN V. SHIVA PRASAD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
BRAJASUNDER DEB V. SARAT KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
KHOO SAIN BAN V. TAN GUAT TEAN [REFERRED TO]
MAQSOOD ALI V. HUNTER [REFERRED TO]
SEETHARAMACHARYULU V. VENKATASUBBAMMA [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI PILLAI V. TRICHINOPOLY CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT BANK [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL SINGH V. INDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GHAFFAR KHAN V. ISHTIAQ ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAZIA BEGAM V.ISHRAT ALI [REFERRED TO]
KALLAWA SHIDLINGAPPA ANGADI VS. PARAPPA SANKAPPA [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA GURURAO JOSHI VS. KAMALABAI SHESHAGIRIRAO SARATHI [REFERRED TO]
IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA VS. BENGAL NATIONAL BANK, LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [REFERRED TO]
AMBALAL BAPUBHAI GUJARATI VS. NARAYAN TATYABA BHOSALE [REFERRED TO]
POSTI MAL VS. FIRM RADHA KISHAN-LAL CHAND [REFERRED TO]
HIRANYA BHUSAN MUKHERJEE VS. GOURI DUTT MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
SRIMATI SABITRI THAKURAIN VS. MRSFASAVI [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS AND SOUTHERN MAHRATTA RY CO LTD VS. BEZWADA MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAMOYEE SINGHA W/O UPENDRA NATH SINGHA VS. JESSORE LOAN COMPANY LTD [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF CUDDAPAH VS. KALAWA SUBBAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN DAS VS. UNITED PROVINCES [REFERRED TO]
SETH GHASIRAM SETH DALCHAND PALLIWAL VS. MT. KUNDANBAI, W/O. RAMESHWAR SHUKUL [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN VS. JHADO [REFERRED TO]
MT. KAWTIKABAI VS. BACHRAJ JAMANLAL [REFERRED TO]
VENKAT RAO GANPAT RAO HARNE VS. ZUNKARI MARWADI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case are very simple, but, in view of the difference of opinion between the Oudh Chief Court and the Allahabad High Court before their amalgamation; it appears to us desirable that it be referred to a larger Bench of five Judges for decision.

(2.) Mt. Munder had filed a Suit No. 166 of 1913 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad for the following reliefs :

(3.) The plaintiff-decree-holder filed an application for execution of the decree (Execution Case No. 1 of 1944) for the arrears of maintenance due to her from 5-12-1940, to 4-1-1944. The application was filed against 17 persons, four of whom were those against whom the decree in Suit No. 166 of 1913 had been passed by this Court and the rest were transferees from them. Three of such transferees were Pandit Madan Mohan, Mt. Premwati and Bate Krishna Das. Pandit Madan Mohan is now dead and he is represented by his son, Mahesh Prasad, who is the appellant in Ex. F. A. No. 254 of 1945. Mt. Premwati is also dead and she is represented by Mt. Brij Rani. The third appellant is Bate Krishna Das. They are transferees of properties which were included in the list of ancestral properties given in the plaint of Suit No. 166 of 1913. The transferees claim that they are transferees for consideration who have purchased the property in good faith and without notice of the charge created under the decree passed by this Court in the year 1917. The lower Court was of the opinion that to a charge created by a decree Sections 39 and 100, T. P. Act had no application and the Court therefore allowed the decree to be executed by sale of the properties in the hands of the three appellants. The lower Court recorded a distinct finding that the transferees had purchased the properties without notice and in good faith and for proper consideration. Mr. Kedar Nath Gupta, holding the brief of Mr. A.P. Pandey, is not able to challenge that finding and we must, therefore, accept the finding of fact recorded by the lower Court.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHESH PRASAD Vs. MUNDAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address