CHHATRAPAL Vs. RAM SAKHI AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-3-46
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on March 25,1965

CHHATRAPAL Appellant
VERSUS
Ram Sakhi And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

UTTAM SINGH V. TALUQDAR SINGH [REFERRED]
SHAMBHU DATT AND ANR. V. ISHWAR DEEN [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This second appeal arises out of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed dated 2nd May 1960 executed by Smt. Ram Sakhi Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in so for as it relates to Plaintiff's one fourth share in the plots mentioned in the plaint and for a permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over his one-fourth share in them. In the alternative a decree for joint possession with Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 was also claimed.
(2.)Admittedly Mata Deen and Ram Nath sons of Rikhi Ram were proprietors in equal shares in the village in which the plots in suit are situate and the plots were their Sir and Khudkasht appertaining to their proprietary interest. Mata Deen had made a gift of his half share in the village to Smt. Ram Sakhi the wife of his predeceased son Ram Manohar. The case of the Plaintiff was that on 4th April 1941 Smt. Ram Sakhi executed a deed of gift in his favour in respect of half of her proprietary interest in the village and delivered possession thereof to him. The Plaintiff claimed that he was thus a joint Sir and Khudkasht holder of the plots in suit along with Smt. Ram Sakhi before the enforcement of the UPZA and LR Act and became a co. bhumidhar with her after the enforcement of the said Act. Smt. Ram Sakhi, however, executed a sale deed in respect of half share in the plots in suit in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who are the descendants of Ram Nath brother of Mata Deen, on 2nd May 1960 although according to the Plaintiff she was not competent to do so in so far as one fourth share in the plots was concerned. This was said to have furnished the cause of action for the suit.
(3.)Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 denied the right of the Plaintiff to the plots in suit and pleaded that the deed of gift dated 4th April 1941 in favour of the Plaintiff was obtained by fraud and undue influence and was never acted upon. They also pleaded that the deed conveyed no interest to the Plaintiff in the plots in suit. Some other pleas were also taken in defence but they are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal.
;


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