9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (1) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... property sold by Iliyas Khan, Mohammad Saddiq Khan, Mst. Ali Begum, Mst. Chhoti, and Mst. Firdos Begum on 2nd of September, 1948. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif on 14th November, 1951, and a decree was passed that if the plaintiff deposited ₹ 2000/- for being paid to the vendees within one month, the defendants would deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, whose title to the property would be deemed to have accrued from the date of such deposit; but if no such payment was made within the aforesaid time, the suit would stand dismissed. The money was deposited in Court on 14th of December, and thereby the decree in favour of the plaintiff came into effect. The plaintiff, however, made an application on 2nd Janu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was rejected. On 11th March, 1955, Motilal filed an application purporting to have been made under Section 144 read with Section 151, C. P. C., and urged-- 1. that the decree, which had been passed in the case had been brought about by fraud of the vendees, as they did not intimate to the Court that the property in dispute was evacuee property. 2. that the decree for pre-emption was passed in enforcement of the right of the pre-emptor as owner of the adjourning property, but such right was in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and 3. that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the decree. It was contended that for the aforesaid reasons the decree was a nulli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of the Munsif, for the plaintiff admitted in paragraph 2 of his application of 28th April, 1952, that the Custodian had affixed his notice on the property after the decision in the suit, and that the plaintiff had put up his objections before the Custodian, which were then pending. This admission shows that the proceedings by the Custodian came to be taken after the decision in the suit and after the title in that property came to be transferred to the plaintiff on 14th December, 1951. As stated earlier, the vendees were not under any obligation to guarantee the light of the vendors to transfer the property to the vendees, and the pre-emptor acquired only such rights as the vendors were able to transfer to the vendees. The loss of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
