REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJ KUER Appellant

V/S

RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GAYA RAM SAHU V. BISHNATH [REFERRED TO]
TOTA RAM V. HARGOVIND [REFERRED TO]
LACHMAN PRASAD V. SARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANNA LAL V. KARU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT INDU V. HAMID ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
GAJADHAR BAKHSH V. GAURI SHANKAR [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR BUX V.THAKUR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
BAI HAKIMBU V. DAYA BHAI RUGNATH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMARI V. RAJENDRA BAHADUR [REFERRED TO]
JAGESHAR PANDE V. DEO DAT PANDE [REFERRED TO]
KHARAG NARAIN V. JANKI BAI [REFERRED TO]
UDAIRAJ SINGH V. RAM UDIT TEWARI [REFERRED TO]
ANGRAJ BAHADUR SINGH V. RAMRUP [REFERRED TO]
BIJLESHARI BAKHSH SINGH V. GAJADHAR [REFERRED TO]
MT.HIDAYAT-UL-NISSA V. JALALUDDIN [REFERRED TO]
BANKEY BEHARI V. MST. BRIJ RANI [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI CHETTIAR V. MALLAPA REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM DEI VS. GYORSI [REFERRED TO]
MINA KUMARI BIBI VS. RAJA BIJOY SINGH DUDHURIA [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. CHIDDU [REFERRED TO]
LALLU SINGH VS. LALA CHANDER SEN [REFERRED TO]
SARJU PRASAD ROUT VS. MANGAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SAHU RAM CHANDRA VS. BHUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UMRAO SINGH VS. KACHERU SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ZAFRUL HASAN V. FARID UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BEHARI VS. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SAHU [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. GAJENDRAPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Raj Kuer, appellant, on 26-2-1944, for recovery of possession of a house situate in village Bargawan, in the district of Sitapur, against the heirs of one Shahr Banoo Begam and Kuar Rajendra Bahadur, a transferee of the house from those heirs.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that she was the donee of the house from her husband Ammar Singh under a deed of gift, dated 25-2-1929, and, as such, entitled to recover possession of it from the defendants who, though they held under colour of an auction-purchase of it by Shahr Banoo, in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by her against Ammar Singh had in fact no right to hold it, since neither the mortgage nor the decree covered the house. She pleaded that her cause of action arose on 1-3-1932, the date on which the execution Court delivered possession to Shahr Banoo Begam.

(3.) Defendant 1 alone filed a written statement. The other defendants adopted it. It was pleaded : (1) That the house in suit was in existence at the date of the mortgage and was covered by it, being situated on land included in the two annas share of village Bargawan, which was mortgaged (2) that the house was also sold in execution of the mortgage decree; (3) that the plaintiff, not having filed any objections in the execution case of which she had full knowledge and having herself carried on litigation with regard to the house as the guardian of her minor son, is estopped from disputing the auction-purchaser's title ; (4) that there was no gift in favour of the plaintiff and, even if a deed of gift is proved, it was fictitious and was executed to defeat and delay creditors; (5) that defendant 1, after purchasing the house made improvements in it at a cost of Rs. 8000 in the bona fide belief that he was the owner of it and so he is entitled to get this back if the plaintiff's title is established.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJ KUER Vs. RAJENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address