RAM KHILONA Vs. SARDAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-7-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
July 16,2002
RAM KHILONA
Appellant
VERSUS
SARDAR
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
M S ANIRUDHAN VS. THOMCOS BANK LIMITED [REFERRED]KALIANNA GOUNDER VS. PALANI GOUNDER [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
JAHANGIRJI VS. K KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-44] [REFERRED TO]PERUMAL KONAR VS. G RAVINDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHAS CHAND JAIN VS. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION [LAWS(P&H)-2007-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHESH NARAIN AWASTHI VS. CHAIRPERSON DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD VS. ZAKIR HASAN [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-38] [REFERRED ON]
JAHANGIRJI (DIED) VS. K KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2011-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL VAHEED VS. AMAR CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
V BRINDA VS. SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-56] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAMLINGAM AND SUSAIRAJ VS. EBLE EGNASIS AND FRANCINA THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES [LAWS(BOM)-2013-12-232] [REFERRED TO]
MOLOY KUMAR GHOSH VS. SAMARENDRA KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA SHUKLA VS. MANORAMA RAGHUVANSHI [LAWS(MPH)-2012-6-144] [REFERRED TO]
C.VICTORIA VS. SUBRAMANI@PERIYATHAMBI [LAWS(MAD)-2013-9-216] [REFERRED TO]
ACHARYA MAHANT SALKAR BABA VS. DATTATRAYA S/O BABUJI PECHE [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-331] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMAN; GIRISH VS. HAMEED [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-362] [REFERRED]
SMT. CHANDAN DEVI D/O SHRI MADAN LAL JI VS. GYAN CHAND KOTHARI S/O SHRI RAJMAL KOTHARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
D. P. Mohapatra, J. -
(1.)The judgment dated 24-9-1996 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal Nos. 1974/78 and 1975/78, is under challenge in these appeals filed by Ram Khilona, Charni, Smt. Kishni w/o Ratni, Hari Ram @ Harbans s/o Ratni, Smt. Mukhtary w/o Buddhi, Sher Singh s/o Buddhi, Shyam Lal s/o Buddhi and Praye Lal s/o Het Ram, against Sardar and Sher Singh, sons of Kanha Jaat, Nehal Singh s/o Todar and Ram Khilari s/o Todar (deceased) by his Legal Representatives Veerpal and Khemo.
(2.)In the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The operative portion of the judgment reads :
"In the result, both the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in both the suits are accordingly set aside. Suit No. 58 of 69 which was filed by covenators for specific performance of the agreement deed (Ext. 12) is dismissed with costs throughout whereas suit No. 58 of 71 which had been filed for declaration of the rights of the vendees over the land in suit is decreed with costs throughout. The vendees are accordingly declared owners of the land in suit by virtue of the sale deed which was executed by the vendors transferring the land in suit in their favour on 7-5-69."
(3.)The factual back drop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :
(2.)In the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. The operative portion of the judgment reads :
"In the result, both the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Courts below in both the suits are accordingly set aside. Suit No. 58 of 69 which was filed by covenators for specific performance of the agreement deed (Ext. 12) is dismissed with costs throughout whereas suit No. 58 of 71 which had been filed for declaration of the rights of the vendees over the land in suit is decreed with costs throughout. The vendees are accordingly declared owners of the land in suit by virtue of the sale deed which was executed by the vendors transferring the land in suit in their favour on 7-5-69."
(3.)The factual back drop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus :
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.