RAMLAL Vs. PHAGUA
LAWS(SC)-2005-10-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 19,2005
RAMLAL
Appellant
VERSUS
PHAGUA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
INDIRA KAUR VS. SHEO LAL KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]MAKHANLAL VS. ASHARFILAL [REFERRED TO]
MANIKKOTH NARAYANI AMMA AND ORS. V. PC. KALLIANI AMMA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. NIHAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
THIAGARAJAN VS. VENUGOPALASWAMY B KOIL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
GENDALAL SAJJANBAI VS. PANNALAL LILABAI [LAWS(MPH)-2008-3-80] [REFERRED TO]GOPAL CHANDRA MONDAL & ORS VS. DURGADAS RAKSHIT & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-6-137] [REFERRED TO]
SEKAR VS. PATTAIKARAR ALIAS PALANIAPPA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR TIWARI VS. IST A.D.J.HARDOI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
S M M MOHAMED MYDEEN VS. S N PEER MOHAMED [LAWS(MAD)-2012-1-258] [REFERRED TO]
R MARIMUTHU CHETTIAR VS. G VENKATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-3-343] [REFERRED TO]
K. PALANI VS. R. MADANA GOPAL [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-219] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTI DEVI VS. FULCHAND MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2006-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BHAGAWATI SUREKA VS. SMT. BIJUR1 CHOWDHURY AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2006-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P GOPALA REDDY, [LAWS(APH)-2011-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA MISHRA VS. JAGADEEP PRATAP DEO [LAWS(ORI)-2016-3-35] [REFERRED]
GULSANARA BEGUM VS. RAHUL SK. AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
V P FAKRUDHEEN HAJI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2008-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESWAR DUBEY VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-329] [REFERRED TO]
JAYADEB SWAIN VS. SANTHA BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2006-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JANAM VS. RAM DIN [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-180] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASHREY PRASAD SINGH VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 8 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-136] [REFERRED]
SK SABIRUDDIN ALIAS BHADDU VS. SK SABRATI ALIAS SK LALU [LAWS(CAL)-2006-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR GUHA VS. UTTAM CHAND SURANA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
SHEOPAL SINGH VS. CHHIDDU SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-201] [REFERRED TO]
BIRENDRA RUDRAPAUL VS. AMIYA DEBNATH [LAWS(GAU)-2009-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR RANJAN CHANDA VS. UMA DUTTA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
PUTUL RANI DUTTA, W/O NIRODE CHANDRA DUTTA AND ORS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-3-48] [REFERRED]
BANSHI LAL VS. KALU RAM & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
AMARNATH BHARGAVA AND ORS. VS. SURAJ PRAKASH BHARGAVA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
NAVANEETHAMMAL VS. KULLAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
NAVANEETHAMMAL VS. KULLAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
JAHURA BEGUM VS. RUPJAHAN BEGUM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM DUBEY, S/O. GURUPRASAD VS. SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O. RADHIKA [LAWS(MPH)-2012-10-147] [REFERRED TO]
YESHODI CHANDRU NAIK VS. GURUNATH RAGHUVIR SHETYE [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP SINGHA ROY VS. DEBIKA SINGHA CHAKRABORTY [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR AND OTHERS VS. BOARD OF REVENUE, RAJASTHAN, AJMER [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-152] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANI VS. MOHAN SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2007-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANI SANKAR MISRA VS. RUDRA PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
SRI. GOUTAM SAHA VS. SHRI BIPLAB DEBNATH, AGARTALA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER) AND THE ASSESSOR [LAWS(TRIP)-2014-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL TUKARAM KADAM AND ANOTHER VS. VAMANRAO SAWALARAM BHOSALE AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH (DEAD) VS. G. ARADHYA [LAWS(SC)-2023-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
KIRPAL SINGH VS. KARNAIL RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN SINGH VS. JAWAHAR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-12-140] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2008-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIMAN V.K. VS. SEBIYULLA [LAWS(KER)-2024-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
RASILABEN CHIMANLAL KAUSABI VS. RAVINBHAI RANCHORBHAI PATEL AND ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-370] [REFERRED TO]
MAHFUZ ALI IN JAIL VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1952-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTH ASHRAM SCHOOL VS. RUKHMINIBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-188] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SANKAR DAS VS. RANJIT KUMAR KARMAKAR [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA PRASAD LAHERI S/O LATE ANTI PRASAD LAHERI VS. KISHORE KUMAR KESHAN [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-633] [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(SC)-2006-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
M GULLAPPA VS. KRISHNAMMA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-227] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR RAM JAISWARA VS. SITA DEVI JAISWAR AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-3-132] [REFERRED TO]
NITEI RANJAN SWAIN VS. KRUSHNA SWAIN [LAWS(ORI)-2008-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
Siddamma and others VS. Venkataswamy and others [LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
KHATUN AND ORS. VS. ADINATH TEXTILES AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-151] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH AGARWAL VS. MAHESH AGARWAL [LAWS(SIK)-2013-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
KAMTA PRASAD VS. PILWADAS BAIJNATH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-11-95] [REFERRED TO]
ARIKHITA SAHU AND ORS. VS. J. KRISHNAVENI AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. -
(1.)The above appeal was filed by the unsuccessful defendants against the final judgment and order dated 6-8-1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Second Appeal No. 500 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the Second Appeal filed by the respondent/Plaintiff.
(2.)The short facts of the case are as follows :- The respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi after obtaining a loan of Rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi within 3 years, property shall be reconveyed to him. The respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of 3 years. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 400/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then.
(3.)Respondent No. 1-Phagua filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 1-12-1965 executed by her in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. She also prayed for possession of the suit land. The trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 1-12-1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed first appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the Court below have failed to consider an admission by respondent No.8/defendant No. 8-Mst. Hasrat Bi that what was given was a loan committed an error in treating the document dated 1-12-1965 as a sale and not a nominal sale. It was submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are erroneous in law and facts and deserve to be set aside.
(2.)The short facts of the case are as follows :- The respondent/plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi after obtaining a loan of Rs. 400/- and also executed an agreement stating therein that in case she returns Rs. 400/- to Mst. Hasrat Bi within 3 years, property shall be reconveyed to him. The respondent failed to repay the loan within the stipulated period of 3 years. Therefore, Mst. Hasrat Bi got her name recorded in the revenue and sold the property to the appellant Ramlal Shyamlal and one Pyarelal by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 400/-. According to the appellants, they came in possession of the property and are cultivating since then.
(3.)Respondent No. 1-Phagua filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 1-12-1965 executed by her in favour of Mst. Hasrat Bi was only a nominal sale and she continues to be the owner of the suit land. She also prayed for possession of the suit land. The trial Court held that the registered sale deed dated 1-12-1965 has not been executed nominally and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed first appeal before the District Judge who also dismissed the appeal. The respondent filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the Court below have failed to consider an admission by respondent No.8/defendant No. 8-Mst. Hasrat Bi that what was given was a loan committed an error in treating the document dated 1-12-1965 as a sale and not a nominal sale. It was submitted that the conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below are erroneous in law and facts and deserve to be set aside.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.