9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (8) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are entitled to a larger share than they claim: Mt. Fagni is not a plaintiff. The defendants have admitted that in 1924 the plaintiffs and their brothers owned as much property as the plaintiffs alleged they did. On 10th July 1924 a deed was executed by the plaintiffs' brothers, Jiansa and Najaria, and by Mt. Kajaria in the capacity of the guardian of the two plaintiffs who were then minors, in favour of the defendant Dharamchand: by this deed a 2 annas share of the village purported to be transferred for a consideration of ₹ 400. Two days later, a deed of surrender with respect to some of the sir fields of the village was executed by the same persons. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the sale deed and surrender did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deed was void: he therefore granted the plaintiff a declaration that the sale was invalid so far as the shares of the plaintiffs were concerned. The defendant has riled a second appeal. 4. The grounds, which urge that Mt. Kajaria, as guardian of the minor plaintiffs, was competent to sell the estate for legal necessity, are not well framed, but it seems clear that the finding of the lower appellate Court is based on misapprehension. It is the case of both parties that, at the time of the transaction, the plaintiffs were owners of certain property. It does not appear to me material whether any of their ancestors had died intestate. If the ancestors had died intestate 50 years before, the provisions of the Succession Act could obviously h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after executing the sale deed on 10th July 1924 the transaction regarding the surrender had for some reason fallen through, the executants could not have avoided the sale deed without even alleging that the consideration had been entered as ₹ 400 because of an agreement regarding another transaction. The decree of the lower appellate Court must therefore be set aside; the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed; the surrender is invalid, but there is no necessity to grant, the plaintiffs a declaration to that effect. I understand that the defendants are not in possession; the plaint shows this was the case at the institution of the suit. In view of the course taken by this litigation I direct that the plaintiffs will bear their own costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
