High Courts(2009) 12 AHC CK 0152

Champiya vs Rajwati & Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 22 December 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C.Nigam, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 365 words

Subhash Chandra Nigam, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

1.

It is being contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are daughters of deceased Babu. Deceased Babu had executed a registered saledeed in favour of the appellant for consideration of Rs.1,20,000/. The defendantrespondents have filed a suit for declaring the alleged saledeed to be null and void. The suit was decreed by learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2007. The defendantappellant went into appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed.

2.

Issue notice to the respondents.

3.

Admit on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the Courts below have not grossly erred in declaring the registered saledeed dated 13.08.2004 as null and void by completely ignoring the provisions of Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 inasmuch as the endorsements made by SubRegistrar on the registered saledeed were conclusive proof of due execution of the saledeed?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs, being successors/heirs/legal representatives of the vendor Babu, were not estopped from challenging the saledeed executed by their father especially in view of the statements given by their mother Ramwati before Civil Court and Revenue Court regarding due and valid execution of the saledeed and whether principles of estoppel as contained under Section 115 of the Evidence Act are not attracted against the plaintiffsrespondents?

(3) Whether the Courts below have not completely erred in laying burden of proof with regard to genuineness/ingenuineness/validity/invalidity of the saledeed dated 13.08.2004 and whether it was for the defendantappellant to prove that the saledeed was genuinely and validly executed or for the plaintiffs to establish alleged fraudulent act in view of Sections 101 to 104 of the Evidence Act, 1872?"

4.

Issue notice to the respondents to file the counter affidavit within four weeks after service of notice upon them. The rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

5.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

6.

In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are stayed till the next date of listing.