KHYALIRAM GOPAL PORWAD Vs. ONKARLAL CHUNNILAL AND ORS.
LAWS(MPH)-1949-3-3
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 02,1949

Khyaliram Gopal Porwad Appellant
VERSUS
Onkarlal Chunnilal And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAMALA KANTA V. ANNADA CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
PENIA AIYA AMBALAM V. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM [REFERRED TO]
DUBRAJ V. LALJI SAHAI [REFERRED TO]
TARABAI RAMRAO V. DATTARAM [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH V. DUNI [REFERRED TO]
STOCKING B. V. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO [REFERRED TO]
SALIG RAM V. GAURI SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
MUNAWAR ALI VS. JAGMILAN RAM [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN VS. JAFAR BEG [REFERRED TO]
NANDKISHORE AND OTHERS VS. DAMODAR BALAJI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

INDER SINGH VS. MUKAND SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1995-11-29] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Rege, J. - (1.)THIS appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a house alleged to have been mortgaged with possession by one Bhayyaji s/o Kanaji to one Keshavram for Rs. 71 on 16th August 1926 (shrawan Sudi 8 Samvat 1983). The Plaintiff Onkarlal and his sons and grandsons are Plaintiffs claiming to be the heirs of Bhavaaji. Defendants Nathulal and his minor son, Bherulal are heirs of mortgagee and Khyaliram and his minor sons have been impleaded as licensees of Keshavram, the uncle -in -law of Khyaliram.
(2.)NATHULAL denied liability contending that he was separate from his brother Kesharam and had nothing to do with the alleged mortgage. Khyaliram denied the mortgage as also the heir ship of the Plaintiffs and claimed ownership by adverse possession. In Para 7 of his written statement, he alleged that about fifteen years ago, he found the house entirely dilapidated and since vacant land in the village was considered to be Government property, he occupied it and constructed the present house on it on the advice of Keshavram at a cost of about six or seven hundred rupees. He claimed Rs. 700 as compensation if the Plaintiffs were held entitled to redeem the property. He declined to be the guardian of his minor Bona, and Mr. Ratnavat who was appointed guardian virtually adopted Khyaliram's de fence. The suit was tried on the following issues:
1. Whether the house in suit was mortgaged by Bhayyaji the brother of Plaintiff l's father with Koshoram to cousin brother of Defendant 1 for Rs. 71?

2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the house in dispute?

Whether Defendant, 3 spent Rs. 700 over the said house and he is entitled to recover it?

(3.)WHETHER Defendants 4 to 7 are liable for the Plaintiff 's claim?


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.