RAJA SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHAN DEO Vs. KUMAR JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1961-12-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on December 13,1961

RAJA SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHAN DEO Appellant
VERSUS
KUMAR JAGAT KISHORE PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JAGBANDHAN NATH TEWARY VS. THUIYA MAHLI [LAWS(PAT)-1973-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BIHARI DUBEY VS. CHANDRA SHEKHAR TEWARY [LAWS(PAT)-1974-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMSINGH VS. RAMKARAN [LAWS(MPH)-1964-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
NAIMA KHATOON VS. SARJU PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1969-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHU DUSADH VS. MANGANI DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-1983-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
KHIALI RAM VS. SUBEDAR MAST RAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1964-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHORE PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH VS. RAM PRATAP PANDEY [LAWS(SC)-1966-11-8] [REFERRED]
MEHARBAN SINGH VS. NARESH SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1969-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
ELIAS MEYER FREE SCHOOL AND TALMUD TORAH VS. OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
GAURI KUMARI DEVI VS. BABU KRISHNA PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-1967-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SARBESWAR GHATAK VS. EXECUTOR, ESTATE OF ASWINI KUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-1974-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
RATINDRA NATH PAL VS. SUBODH GOPAL BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-1969-6-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sarkar, J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent Kumar Jagat Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh, hereafter called the respondent against the appellant, the Raja of Kanika, for redemption of certain mortgages. The suit was decreed by a learned Subordinate Judge of Gaya and the High Court at Patna confirmed that decree on appeal. The appellant has now appealed to this Court against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.)In the High Court many points were argued but in this Court Mr. Sastri for the appellant pressed only one point. We have therefore to state only such of the facts as concern the point raised by Mr. Sastri.
(3.)The respondent claimed to be entitled to redeem the mortgages as the executor of the estate of Chandreshwar Prasad, the mortgagor, and as the receiver appointed in certain execution proceedings hereafter mentioned. It has since been finally held, as will appear later, that the will appointing the respondent executor was not genuine. It may also be stated that the respondent is no longer holding the office of receiver. It would, therefore, appear that the respondent has now no locus standi to contest the appeal. He was, however, the only person opposing the appeal in this Court. As learned counsel for the appellant did not object to the respondent appearing in this appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss the respondent's position further.


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