BAI CHANDAN Vs. SHETH RAJAKBHAI KARIMBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-1960-9-15
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 07,1960

BAI CHANDAN Appellant
VERSUS
SHETH RAJAKBHAI KARIMBHAI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHAVANJI JUGAJI VS. JUGAJI BABAJI THAKOR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-177] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.B.RAJU - (1.)This is a first appeal by the original plaintiff Bai Chandan widow of Maneklal Himatlal who filed a suit for a declaration that the suit property bearing Municipal No. 927 of Prantij belongs to her and that her son defendant No. 2 has no right title or interest in it and for an injunction to restrain defendant No. 1 who had obtained a decree against defendant No. 2 from selling it in Darkhast as property of defendant No. 2. The suit has been dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Ahmedabad.
(2.)In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that her husband Maneklal Himatlal who had died in 1942 had made a gift in her favour in 1932 of the suit property as he had married a third wife without the Plaintiffs consent and in order to appease the plaintiff who had objected the third marriage of Maneklal. The gift was registered on 27-6-32. Having learnt that the defendant No. 1 who had obtained a decree against her son defendant No. 2 and had put the suit house to sale in execution of that decree the plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration and for an injunction as stated above. The pleas taken up by defendant No. 1 in his written statement in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of this appeal are that the suit house was ancestral property and therefore Maneklal had no right to gift it to his wife the plaintiff.
(3.)In appeal it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that defendant No. 1 who alleged that the suit property was ancestral had failed to prove that it was ancestral property. It is urged that defendant No. 1 in his evidence has admitted that there was no evidence to prove that the suit house was the ancestral property of Maneklal and that the evidence of defendant No. 1 that he had seen Himatlal the father of Maneklal residing in the suit property and that therefore the suit house was ancestral cannot be relied upon as obviously defendant No. 1 is interested in this property.
;


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