REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Akhileshwar Mahto Appellant

V/S

Kasida Devi Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VINAY KRISHNA -VS- KESHAV CHANDRA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KRISHNA VS. KESHAV CHANDRA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MEHARCHAND DAS VS LA BABU SIDDIQUE [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS CHANDRA MAUL [REFERRED TO]
JAIKISHAN CHAUDHARI VS RAMDEO CHAUDHARI [REFERRED TO]
PADMAWATI V. HARIJAN SEWAK SANGH [REFERRED TO]
AUTOLITE FINACERS (P) LTD VS SWASTIK FINANCIAL CORPORATION (P) LTD AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH CHANDRA AND ORS VS GAYANSUN-DARBAI AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
JAGBANDHU NAIK AND ANOTHER VS GAURI BANDHA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI VS. RAM PHAL [REFERRED TO]
K R MOHAN REDDY VS. NET WORK INC [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHEEM VS. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO LEGAL ACTION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. IBRAHIM UDDIN [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL KUMARI VS. OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAKIM VS. HABIB KHAN [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH RAO VS. AVM MAHINDER SINGH RAO [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAJA VS. VIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. [REFERRED TO]
Jai Kishun Choudhary VS. Ramdeo Choudhary [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VS. CHANDRAN & ORS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Defendant No.l (LR) against the judgment of affirmation passed by District Judge-II, Palamu in Title Appeal No. 09 of 2007.

(2.) The plaintiffs / respondents filed the suit for declaration that schedule -B sold by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 and 3 vide sale deed No. 321 dtd. 7/1/1985 be declared null and void. Schedule B is part of the land obtained by gift deed fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff Kasida Devi is that Maheshwari Devi (Proforma Defendant No. 4 now dead) W/O Mahang Mahto acquired different plots of land by registered sale deed No.5341 dtd. 19/4/1968, Deed No.8295 dtd. 1/9/1969, Deed No.10432 dtd. 22/12/69, Deed No.884 dated17.1.72 and came in possession of them. The plaintiff acquired Title and possession over Schedule-A property from Maheshwari Devi by registered deed of Gift No. 1904 executed on 28/2/1978 (Schedule-A). Ma-hang Mahto had two sons Ramcharitar Mahto (Defendant No. 1) and Sukhdeo Mahto. Kasida Devi W/o Sukhdeo Mahto is the plaintiff. In pursuance to the gift deed the land was duly mutated and demand of revenue has been opened in her name. It is further case of the plaintiff that Defendant No. 1 stole all the deeds by which Schedule-A land were purchased regarding which a criminal case was also registered. Defendant No.l sold the part of Schedule-A land to Defendant Nos.2 and 3 by registered deed of 7/1/1985 vide sale deed No. 321. Purchasers of the land had however not entered into possession. The land illegally sold has been fully detailed in Schedule-B of the plaint which comprises of 58 decimals of land in Plot No. 1371.

Click here to view full judgment.

AKHILESHWAR MAHTO Vs. KASIDA DEVI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address