Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 48 (ALL)

Sobaran Singh v. Rajendra Singh

1988-01-13

B.L.YADAV

body1988
JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24th August, 1965 executed by Smt. Sundari, defendant-respondent no. 3 in favour of Rajendra Singh and Laturi Singh, defendants-respondents 1 and 2. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed that the sale deed in question be cancelled to the extent of 2/9th Share of the executant. The plaintiff claimed possession over the western half portion of the house in suit. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant no. 3 Smt. Sundari was the widow of one Tika Ram who was father's brother of plaintiff. In this way, as she was the member of joint Hindu family, she has no right to execute the sale deed. 2. The defence was of the total denial of plaint case and it was alleged that after the death of her husband, Tika Ram, who was recorded over the land in suit defendant no. 3 Smt. Sundari, as his widow succeeded the interest of deceased over the agricultural land and also over the house in dispute and as such the sale deed executed by her was perfectly correct. 3. The trial court decreed the suit for cancellation of 6th share in the house in suit. The decree has been affirmed in appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. Against the decree of the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. 4. The point for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether Smt. Sundari, the vendor, has got right to execute the sale deed. Suffice it to say that even during the consolidation operation, she was recorded as co-tenant over the agricultural plots along with Sobaran Singh. As regards the house, she was living with her husband and, therefore, she is entitled to the share in the house by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and also under the other relevant laws. It cannot be said that she has no right to execute the sale deed. 5. After the perusal of the judgments of the courts below, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.