Difference between revisions of "KRISHNA DEVI V/S KESHRI NANDAN SC 230"
(Created page with "KRISHNA DEVI V/S KESHRI NANDAN SC 230 Decided On 21 March 2018 In the Supreme Court of India Introduction The case was filed for partition and separate possession of half...")
Latest revision as of 03:07, 24 May 2020
KRISHNA DEVI V/S KESHRI NANDAN SC 230 Decided On 21 March 2018
In the Supreme Court of India
The case was filed for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property. It was initially heard by the trial court where the suit was decreed. Then the decree was challenged before the first appellate court where the judgement of the trial court was set aside and appeal was allowed. Then the second appeal was filed by the appellant before the High Court where the appeal was dismissed. Finally, the matter was heard by the Supreme Court where it was held that though it is contended on behalf of the Appellant that property owner was not keeping well, no medical evidence was produced in support of the said contention. Supreme Court did not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Parties in the appeal were close relatives. Krishna Devi, the appellant is the daughter of Dharam Singh. Mathura Prasad, the second defendant was the brother of Dharam Singh and Keshri Nandan respondent No. 1 is the son of Mathura Prasad. The appellant filed the suit against Keshri Nandan and Mathura Prasad for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property. It was her case that the property originally belonged to her grandfather Banshi Dhar. After Banshi Dhar’s death, her father Dharam Singh and her paternal uncle Mathura Prasad have succeeded to the said property and after the death of her father Dharam Singh, she is entitled for half share in the said property.
Respondents opposed the suit. It was contended that Dharam Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of his fifty per cent share in the said property in favour of the first defendant. The appellant contended that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh has been obtained by fraud and mis-representation and hence, the said sale deed is not binding upon her.
Judgement by Trial Court
The trial court on appreciation of materials on record held that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh did not confer any right, title or interest on the respondents. Consequently, the suit was decreed.
Judgement by first Appellate Court
The respondents challenged the said decree before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The first Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal.
The second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
Judgement by Supreme Court
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It cannot be held that the sale deed executed by Dharam Singh was obtained by fraud or by mis-representation. It is clear that when the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh, he was having sound state of mind. The Sub-Registrar, who had registered the documents was examined as a witness. In his evidence he stated that the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh after he had explained to the parties about contents of the said deed. Appellant stated in their statements that Dharam Singh was not in good state of mind at the time of the execution of the document. Though it is contended on behalf of the Appellant that Dharam Singh was not keeping well, no medical evidence was produced in support of the said contention. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.