REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DEVISAHAI PREMRAJ MAHAJAN Appellant

V/S

GOVINDRAO BALWANTRAO Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KUNDANBAI V. SATYANARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
MA THET V. MA SE MAI [REFERRED TO]
OHN MAUNG V. MAUNG PO KWE [REFERRED TO]
LAKHSHMI NARAIN V. BABU [REFERRED TO]
T.K. CHAKRAPANI IYER V.AMMALU AMMA [REFERRED TO]
SHIRA KHATOON V.MAUNG PAN [REFERRED TO]
MST. RADHABAI V. N.J. NAYUDU [REFERRED TO]
DAMMULAL BABULAL JAIN V. MOHAMMAD BHAI [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATHLAL V. ANANDKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SOBHARAM JIWAN V. TOLARAM SITARAM [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN PANDURANG V. GURU PRASAD NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL V. LABHCHAND [REFERRED TO]
KUKAJI V. BASANTILAL [REFERRED TO]
JAHANGIR BEGUM V. GULAM ALI AHMED [REFERRED TO]
GOPALAN V. ERAM VEETTIL KANARAN [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANDAS PARSADILAL V. SURAJMAL [REFERRED TO]
LAL BHAGWANT SINGH VS. KISHEN DAS [REFERRED TO]
NAGUBAI AMMAL VS. B SNAMA RAO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KISHORILAL GUPTA AND BROS [REFERRED TO]
HABIB MIYAN VS. MAHEMUD MIR [REFERRED TO]
RATANLAL VS. KISHANLAL [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH DAS VS. SUNDAR DAS KHETRI [REFERRED TO]
SUNITIBALA DEBI VS. MANINDRA CHANDRA ROY CHAUDHURY [REFERRED TO]
SIDDIK MAHOMED SHAH VS. MT SARAN [REFERRED TO]
PUSARAM MANIKLAL IZARDAR VS. DEORAO GOPALRAO MALI (MINOR) BY GUARDIAN MOTHER PARWATI W/O. GOPALRAO [REFERRED TO]
C. WRIGHT NEVILLE VS. E. H. FRESER [REFERRED TO]
LAXMINARAYAN BARSIDAS AGARWAL MARWARI AND OTHERS VS. DINKER SHANKERRAO DESHPANDE AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
GOVERDHANDAS RAMKUMAR KHANDELWAL VS. CHOUDHARI CHAITRAM GHANSHYAMPRASAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant against the decree, dated 10-1-1959, passed by shri S. L. Sharma, Second Additional District Judge, indore, in Civil Suit No. 14 of 1961, decreeing the first respondent's suit for redemption of it mortgage, dated 26-11-1929 which he had executed in favour of the appellant, Devisahai.

(2.) THE first respondent, Sardar Govindrao is owner of the suit house. He executed a possessory mortgage in favour of the appellant on 26-11-1929 for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -. Subsequent to the mortgage, certain other developments have taken place on the strength of which the appellant contests the mortgagor's right to redeem. According to the appellant, the mortgagor had agreed to sell the mortgaged properly to him for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-; and in pursuance of the same, a sale deed was actually executed and duly signed on 10-10-1950. But before presentation of the sale deed for registration, the mortgagor changed his mind and by using the other stamp papers of the deed except the first and the last, the mortgagor altered it into a deed of sale, dated 14-10-1950 in favour of the second respondent. Gyarsilal, for a consideration of rs. 50,000/ -. At the time of the sale deed in favour of the appellant, an account of the mortgage transaction was made and a round sum of Rs. 25,000/- was settled to he adjusted. The appellant was to pay the balance of Rs. 25,000/- in cash. As there was a completed contract in favour of the appellant, he claimed the benefit of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to resist the mortgagor's claim for redemption, and also contended that the second appellant, Gyarsilal did not get any valid title by virtue of the subsequent sale deed, dated 14-10-1950 executed by the mortgagor.

(3.) THE plaintiff respondents contended that the mortgagee, Devisahai was not entitled to resist the claim for redemption by relying on the doctrine of part performance and that Section 53-A of the Transfer of Properly Act was not at all attracted

Click here to view full judgment.

DEVISAHAI PREMRAJ MAHAJAN Vs. GOVINDRAO BALWANTRAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address