REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMLAGAN JAMADAR Appellant

V/S

AKLESHWAR PRASAD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HENRY PIGOT'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
MASTER V. MILLER [REFERRED TO]
KINNELL V. PEEBLES [REFERRED TO]
DAVIDSON V. COOPER [REFERRED TO]
SUFFELL V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND [REFERRED TO]
GARDNER V. WALSH [REFERRED TO]
WATT (OR THOMAS) V. THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
POWELL V. STREATHAM MANOR NURSING HOME [REFERRED TO]
YUILL V. YUILL [REFERRED TO]
DUNN V. DUNN'S TRUSTEES [REFERRED TO]
MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARY CO. LTD. V. SECY. OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
GOGUN CHANDER GHOSE V. DHURONINDHUR MUNDUL [REFERRED TO]
W.C.MACDONALD REGISTERED V. FRED LATIMER [REFERRED TO]
SARJU PERSHAD RAMDEO SAHU VS. JWALESHWARI PRATAP NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. KARTAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SARA VESRASWAMI ALIAS SARA VEERRAJU VS. TALLURI NARAYYA (DECEASED) [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA LTD VS. JAMSETJI A H CHINOY AND MESSRS CHINOY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE TEWARI VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LUCKNOW IN CHARGE COURT OF WARDS, SISSENDI ESTATE [REFERRED TO]
NATHU LAL VS. MT GOMTI KUAR [REFERRED TO]
VATHYAM BALARAMA SASTRI VS. VAVILALA VASUDEVA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by defendants 1 and 2, who were defendants first party to the suit, from a judgment of reversal, of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, who, in disagreement with the first Court, decreed the plaintiffs' suit, has been referred to a Division Bench by Kanhaiya Singh, J.

(2.) In support of the appeal, Mr. G.C. Mukherji has put forward two contentions, first, that the judgment of the Court of appeal below is not a proper judgment of reversal in accordance with law; and, second, that the sale deed executed by defendants 3 to 5, who were defendants second party to the suit, in favour of Khiru Jamadar, defendant 6, dated the 24th August, 1943, which was the document of title of the plaintiffs' vendor, being in custody of the plaintiff's throughout, and, they having allowed the thumb impressions of the executants of the sale-deed--defendants 3 to 5--to be blurred, were not entitled to a decree on the basis of the same.

(3.) In order to appreciate the two points raised by Mr. Mukherji, it is necessary to state briefly a few facts:

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMLAGAN JAMADAR Vs. AKLESHWAR PRASAD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address