Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAJODHAR versus RAJ KUMAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gajodhar v. Raj Kumar & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 892 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 14400 (23 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

The plaintiff appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 8.7.1991 be declared null and void. The said suit was filed on the allegation that the plaintiff appellant had 1/4th share in the said house and therefore the defendant No. 2 had no right to transfer the entire house without getting it partitioned. The trial court while deciding issue Nos. 1,4 and 6 together with regard to the co-ownership of the plaintiff appellant over the house in dispute and  the sale deed dated 8.7.1991 being invalid has recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff appellant has failed to prove that he is the one of the co-owners of the said house. The trial court has further returned a finding that the sale deed dated 8.7.1991 is not a fictitious and invalid document and since the plaintiff appellant had no share in the house in dispute, the sale deed is not liable to be declared as null and void on the ground alleged in the plaint. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. The findings recorded by the trial court have been confirmed by the appellate court as well.

The only ground taken by the plaintiff appellant for declaring the sale deed to be null and void is that the defendant No. 2 has no right to execute the sale deed of the house without getting it partitioned as the plaintiff appellant has 1/4th share in the same.  However since the  plaintiff appellant has failed to prove that he is the co-owner of the house in dispute to the extent 1/4th share, the courts below committed no error of law in dismissing the suit and in refusing to declare the sale deed as null and void. I do not find any error or illegality in the judgment and orders passed by the courts below.

No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

23.8.2007

SKS( 892-07)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.