REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PARMA NAND Appellant

V/S

CHAMPA LAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HOLROYD V. MARSHALL [REFERRED TO]
BURGIS V. CONSTANTINE [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN SINGH V. SITARAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VELIAYAPA ROWTHEN V. BAVA ROWTHEN [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAYA REDDIAR V. RAJAGOPALA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDERA V. RAJENDRA [REFERRED TO]
RAJAPAKSE V. FERNANDO [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD V. NASIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM V. TUKARAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED ALL V. VENKATAPATHL [REFERRED TO]
LADU NARAIN SINGH V. GOBERDHAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
BINDESHWARI SINGH V. HAR NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BASAVA SAIIKARAN V. G.NARASIMHALU [REFERRED TO]
MT.LAKHPAT KUER V. DURGA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
BIJLESHWARI BAKHSH SINGH V. GAJADNAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM BHAROSEY V. BHAGWANDIN [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAIN V. MANGAL PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RISA ANSA V. MOHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
SHAHU AVADESH KUMAR VS. SZAKAUL HUSNAIN [REFERRED TO]
HATTIKUDUR NARAIN RAO VS. ANDAR SAYAD ABBAS SAHIB [REFERRED TO]
DEB NATH MORAL VS. SASHI BHUSAN MORAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL VS. SHIAMA LAL [REFERRED TO]
MULRAJ VS. INDAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
THEKKAMANNENGATH RAMAN ALIAS KOCHU PODUVAL VS. KAKKASSERI PAZHIYOT MANAKKAL KARNAVAN AND MANAGER RAMAN BHATTATHRIPAD [REFERRED TO]
JAGERNATH PRASAD VS. MTDHANPATI [REFERRED TO]
KABUL CHAND VS. BADRI DAS [REFERRED TO]
MT MAINA VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
TILAKDHARI LAL VS. KHEDAN LAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Bench for decision:

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are as follows: One Bhagwati Prasad sold a shop, No. 89 in the city of Jhansi to Lachhman Hao Telang in the year 1936. The vendee could not obtain possession over the shop and so in 1946 filed a suit for recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit he transferred his rights to one Parmanand, who was then substituted as plaintiff for him. The defence to the suit was that Bhagwati Prasad owned only half the shop in 1936, the other half belonging to his brother Bankey Behari Lal. In 1938 Bankey Behari Lal died and his share also was inherited by Bhagwati Prasad. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed that he was protected by Section 43, Transfer of Property Act. The defence, inter alia, was that the plaintiff could not take advantage of Section 43 as he knew of the true position, namely, that Bhagwati Prasad was owner of only one-half of the shop on the date of the sale deed. The trial Court held that the plaintiff knew that the vendor owned only a half share in the shop and that, therefore, it could not be said that he had acted upon the fraudulent, or erroneous representation made by the vendor. The plaintiff appealed to this Court and It was urged on his behalf that the vendor having made an erroneous representation that he was the owner of the entire shop and the transfer having been made of the entire shop, he was entitled to take advantage of Section 43, T. P. Act, and claim that such transfer shall operate on the interest which Bhagwati Prasad acquired by inheritance from Bankey Behari Lal. It has been held in a number of cases in this Court as well as in other Courts that a vendee, who knew the true facts, could not take advantage of Section 43, T. P. Act. The learned Judges before whom the First Appeal came up for hearing in the first instance were of opinion that these rulings require reconsideration and referred the question already mentioned to a larger Bench.

(3.) SECTION 43, T. P. Act, is in these terms:

Click here to view full judgment.

PARMA NAND Vs. CHAMPA LAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address