RAVI KANT Vs. KAURA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of three R.S.As No. 945, 946 and 1539 of 1982 as the same arise out of common judgment rendered by the first appellate Court.

(2.) In R.S.As No. 945 and 946 of 1982, Ravi Kant had filed a suit against Kaura Ram, seeking to preempt the sale made by Gobind Ram in favour of Kaura Ram on the basis of relationship. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 859 he does not press R.S.As No. 945 and 946 of 1982. Both these appeals are, therefore, dismissed as having not been pressed. Ravi Kant appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the Zare-panjam deposited by him.

(3.) In R.S.A. No. 1539 of 1982, the suit was filed by Kaura Ram plaintiff-appellant for declaration against Gobind Ram and others on the allegations that Wasu Ram, Smt. Savitri Devi and Ram Chand vendors sold the suit land to him and Gobind Ram defendant in equal shares that both of them made the payment of the sale consideration in equal shares, that both of them incurred the stamp and registration charges in equal shares but for certain reasons, Kaura Ram plaintiff did not get the sale deed executed in his name and instead got both the sale deeds registered in the name of Gobind Ram defendant; it was claimed that in fact Kaura Ram plaintiff and Gobind Ram were owners in equal shares and that Gobind Ram defendant was thus benami to the extent of one-half share in that land. Plaintiff challenged certain alienations made by Gobind Ram in a suit and the suits subsequently filed by his son Ravi Kant for pre-empting those sales. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed to the extent that he was to be the owner of one-half share. It was held that Gobind Ram was a benami purchaser to the extent of half share of which the plaintiff-appellant was declared to be the owner. Finding on some of the issues was rendered against the plaintiff-appellant and that is why the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant.