TULSI Vs. CHANDRIKA PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JHARKHAND)
Decided on
August 24,2006
TULSI
Appellant
VERSUS
CHANDRIKA PRASAD
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
INDIRA KAUR AND ORS. V. SHEO LAL KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]SARDAR GURBAKHSH SINGH V. GURDIAL SINGH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
TAMBOLI RAMANLAL MOTILAL VS. GHANCHI CHIMANLAL KESHAVLAL [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR RANJAN PAUL VS. CHHATER SINGH BAID [REFERRED TO]
MARTAND PANDHARINATH CHAUDHARI VS. RADHABAI KRISHNARAO DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DEVKU VS. SUNARI [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-3] [REFERRED TO]R RAMAIAH VS. LAKSHMAMMA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-601] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESWARI AMMAL VS. ARUNACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-559] [REFERRED TO]
PARASRAM VS. BABULAL [LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN MADAAN VS. NAGESHWAR PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2014-3-143] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAN VS. S.DAMODARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-11-221] [REFERRED TO]
MANJABAI KRISHNA PATIL VS. RAGHUNATH REVAJI PATIL [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-109] [REFERRED TO]
ADIVEKKA VS. HANAMAVVA KOM VENKATESH [LAWS(SC)-2007-5-175] [REFERRED TO]
T VIJENDRADAS VS. M SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH DADOBA KARALE VS. PRISA SHANTAPPA UPADHYE [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-121] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. AJAY SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
MAYA DEVI PANDEY VS. SUMIT MATHUR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
D.K. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. JAINCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
NAGESHWAR PANDEY VS. KARAN MADAAN AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-318] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL RAVJIBHAI BHULABHAI (D) THR. LRS. VS. RAHEMANBHAI M. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASHREY PRASAD SINGH VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND 8 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-136] [REFERRED]
POOJA SHARMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-631] [REFERRED]
GURDIAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. GURBHAGWANT SINGH ALIAS GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-707] [REFERRED]
BIBI FATIMA & ORS. VS. M. AHAMED HUSSAIN & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
PRANAB KUMAR SAHA VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(TRIP)-2017-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH CHAND VS. PARKASH CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-325] [REFERRED TO]
BABU AND OTHERS VS. SHANKAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-236] [REFERRED TO]
ELADATH UNNICHERIYA ALIAS NANI AMMA AND OTHERS VS. MALUKUTTY AMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-194] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMRAO RAMCHANDRA KHALATE (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. VS. NANA DINKAR YADAV (TANPURA) AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASAMURTHY T.R VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-296] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. B. Sinha, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Whether the deed dated 30.12.1968 constitutes a sale with condition of purchase or mortgage by way of conditional sale is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in F.A. No. 23 of 1991 (R).
(3.)The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The property in question is a house property. It belonged to one Jawala Prasad Sah, defendant No. 3 in the suit. On 30.12.1968, he transferred the northern part of the house property to one Balmukund Chaudhary by way of mortgage for a consideration of Rs. 4,300/- repayable by 30.1.1971. He sold the entire property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. It included the right to redeem the mortgage. The transaction in question was also carried out on the same date, i.e. 30.12.1968.
(2.)Whether the deed dated 30.12.1968 constitutes a sale with condition of purchase or mortgage by way of conditional sale is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in F.A. No. 23 of 1991 (R).
(3.)The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The property in question is a house property. It belonged to one Jawala Prasad Sah, defendant No. 3 in the suit. On 30.12.1968, he transferred the northern part of the house property to one Balmukund Chaudhary by way of mortgage for a consideration of Rs. 4,300/- repayable by 30.1.1971. He sold the entire property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. It included the right to redeem the mortgage. The transaction in question was also carried out on the same date, i.e. 30.12.1968.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.