SUKALOO Vs. PUNAU
LAWS(MPH)-1960-8-18
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
August 25,1960
SUKALOO
Appellant
VERSUS
PUNAU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JAGDEEP SAHAY V. SONU LAL,52 IND CAS 363 [REFERRED TO]BHONU LAL V. W.A. VINCENT [REFERRED TO]
HEMRAJ MARWARI V. TRIMBAK KUNBI [REFERRED TO]
BASALINGAVA V. CHINNAVA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHANKAR MANISHANKAR VS. ABHLA MATHUR [REFERRED TO]
QASIM BEG VS. MUHAMMAD ZIA BEG [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MANISH SHUKLA & ORS. VS. ANAND KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2016-3-23] [REFERRED TO]NARAIN PRASAD VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-1997-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
PREMNARAYAN VS. KUNWARJI [LAWS(MPH)-1993-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
Purabai VS. Prithwiraj [LAWS(MPH)-1998-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
KANAKLATABAI PURUSHOTTAM VS. PARVATIBAI RAMCHANDRA BRAHMIN [LAWS(MPH)-2008-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI LAL VS. MOHD. RAFIK KIDWAI [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-207] [REFERRED TO]
G HAMPAMMA VS. K S KALINGAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1989-4-20] [FOLLOWED ON]
RAJ DUTT VS. NAGESHWAR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
BABOOLAL VS. RATANLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1979-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
COATS VIYELLA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD VS. HARVEY NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAKASH VS. BADDAL HUSAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2007-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
N NALLASAMY GOUNDER VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-91] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF MAHARASTRA & ANOTHER VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-53] [REFERRED TO]
KIRITBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. GUJARAT ECO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2019-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
MRADULA SHIVHARE & ORS VS. MUNNI DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-292] [REFERRED]
SHABAD GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMSTHA VS. PARITA GRIH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI [LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shrivastava, J. -
(1.)This Letters Patent appeal under Clause 10 has been filed against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court, delivered on 15-7-1958. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent Punau against the appellants Sukaloo and Mst. Dukala for recovery of damages for removal of crop from the suit filed for the year 1950-51.
(2.)It is not disputed that the field in dispute belonged to one Bhikmanga. He married Mst. Sukwaro in churi form. At that time, the respondent Punau was less than a year old and he came to live along with his mother with Bhikmanga, who brought him up as his own son. Bhikmanga died in 1947 leaving behind him his widow Mst. Sukwaro, who died in 1951. Appellant No. 1 Sukaloo is Bhiknianga's father's brother's grandson and appellant No. 2 Mst. Dukala is his wife.
(3.)The plaintiff's case was that on 8-2-1948 Bhikmanga had executed a sale- deed in respect of the suit land in his favour for Rs. 4000/- and had delivered possession of the same to him. In 1950-51, the defendants forcibly removed the crop which he valued at Rs. 700/-.
(2.)It is not disputed that the field in dispute belonged to one Bhikmanga. He married Mst. Sukwaro in churi form. At that time, the respondent Punau was less than a year old and he came to live along with his mother with Bhikmanga, who brought him up as his own son. Bhikmanga died in 1947 leaving behind him his widow Mst. Sukwaro, who died in 1951. Appellant No. 1 Sukaloo is Bhiknianga's father's brother's grandson and appellant No. 2 Mst. Dukala is his wife.
(3.)The plaintiff's case was that on 8-2-1948 Bhikmanga had executed a sale- deed in respect of the suit land in his favour for Rs. 4000/- and had delivered possession of the same to him. In 1950-51, the defendants forcibly removed the crop which he valued at Rs. 700/-.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.