REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAM CHARAN DAS Appellant

V/S

MST. GIRJANANDANI DEVI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WILLIAMS,V. WILLIAMS [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHANKAR V. RAM CHARAN [REFERRED TO]
ADIVEPPA NAGAPPA V. TONTAPPA TIPPANNA [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL KRISHNA NATH V. HARI NATH KAPURTH [REFERRED TO]
MT. HIRAN BIBI V. MT. SOHAN BIBI [REFERRED TO]
DHARMA RAO V. VEERIAH [REFERRED TO]
HARIBHAI NANAJI V. NARAYAN HARI [REFERRED TO]
MT. ABADI BEGUM V. MT. BIBI KANIZ ZAINAB [REFERRED TO]
RAMA NANA V. DHONDI MURARI [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA MANOHAR V. VASANT NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
BASANGOUDA GIRIYEPPAGOUDA V. BASALINGAPPA MALLANGOUDA [REFERRED TO]
CHARLES HUBERT KINCH V. EDWARD KEITH WALCOTT [REFERRED TO]
WAJID ALI V. GANGADIN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAVENAMMA V. HANUMANTHA RAO [REFERRED TO]
MUMMAREDDI NAGI REDDI VS. PITTI DURAIRAJA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL KUER VS. MT PERN KUER AND AFTER HER DEATH BOHRE MANOHAR LAL ANCR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MITTAR SAIN VS. DATA RAM [REFERRED TO]
MT DASODIA VS. GAYA PDMINOR THROUGH SADHO RAM [REFERRED TO]
POKHAR SINGH VS. MTDULARI KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
MT MAHADEI KUNWAR VS. PADARATH CHAUBE [REFERRED TO]
T S MURUGESAM PILLAI VS. MANICKAVASAKA DESIKA [REFERRED TO]
SM BROJESWARI DASSI VS. MONORANJAN DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN AHMAD KHAN VS. SIRAJUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question in this appeal is as to the legal effect of a deed, described as a deed of partition, dated 31-3-1933. That deed concerns property of which the last male owner was one Kanhaiya Lal who died on 10-6-1922. He got the property from his grandfather, Chunni Lal, under a will of 1883. He was succeeded by his mother Smt. Kadma Kuer, who died on 14-10-1937. Upon her death the present suit was filed by the plaintiff on, the allegation that he is the next reversioner of Kanhaiya Lal along with his brothers, defendants 2 to 6, and that defendant No. 1 Smt. Girjnandani Devi, widow of Gopi Nath, who was a sister's son of Kanhaiya Lal, had no right to remain in possession of the suit property. Gopi Nath died during the life-time of Smt. Kadma Kuer 13.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, he is not bound by the deed dated 31-3-1933, described as a partition deed and he contends that it is of no legal effect.

(3.) Before stating the defence, we may relate how this deed came into existence.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAM CHARAN DAS Vs. GIRJANANDANI DEVI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address