ABDUL GHAFOOR Vs. ABDUL RAHMAN
LAWS(ALL)-1951-1-16
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on
January 10,1951
ABDUL GHAFOOR
Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL RAHMAN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMRAO BHAGWANTRAO V. APPANNA SAMAGE [REFERRED TO]HRIDAY NATH V. AKSHAY LAL CHAUDHURI [REFERRED TO]
KALI BAM V. DHARMAN [REFERRED TO]
MD. EJAZ RASUL KHAN V. MUBARAC HUSAIN [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDRA PURI V. BENI MADKO [REFERRED TO]
UDOY CHAND V. REASAT HOSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
GURPRIT SINGH V. PUNJAB GOVERNMENT [REFERRED TO]
JAGADAMBAL V. SUNDARAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUKUMAR GUPTA V. CHAIRMAN DISTRICT BOARD,GAYA [REFERRED TO]
DAW DWE V. U. SAN HLA [REFERRED TO]
JAGMOHAN SINGH VS. RAM KHILAWAN DUBE [REFERRED TO]
SYED SADEQ REZA VS. NAWAB ASAF KADER SYED [REFERRED TO]
JUMMA VS. PRAM SAHAI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
GOODWILL INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA NEW DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1968-8-6] [REFERRED 10.]INAYAT ALI VS. NATTHU KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1952-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO KUMAR DWIVEDI VS. THAKURJI MAHARAJ BRIJMAN [LAWS(ALL)-1959-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
SAMBANDA NAICKER VS. RANGANAYAKI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1956-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN JENA VS. SATYABADI SAMAL [LAWS(ORI)-1985-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
PHARIYA BRICKS WORKS FIRM VS. MALVENDRA SINGH AMAR SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1990-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA BOSE VS. MACHINE TOOLS OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1990-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
DEVARAJ DHANRAM VS. FIREBRICKS [LAWS(KAR)-1998-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
HOMEO DR T K PRABHAWATI VS. C P KUNHATHABI UMMA [LAWS(KER)-1981-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
A P S BAHURUDEEN VS. ANTONY [LAWS(MAD)-1990-11-61] [REFERRED TO]
MOOSA SULEMAN MEMON VS. HANUMAN IDOL [LAWS(BOM)-1979-2-65] [REFERRED TO]
R THYAGARAJAN VS. MEENAKSHI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1996-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
HYDERABAD SIND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1958-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
BHAG MAL VS. MASTER KHEM CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-1961-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SYED WAHID HUSSAIN VS. MAHARAJKUMAR MAHMUD HASAN KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1959-12-12] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL KRUSHNA ROY VS. RAUKISHORE MOHANTY [LAWS(ORI)-1955-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEOJI CHANDRESWARAJI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI MAHAL DELUX-II VS. KIRAN DUTTA [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
BABRAK KHAN VS. A. SHAKOOR MOHAMMAD [LAWS(ORI)-1954-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHHINDO VS. MELA SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1966-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEEDA BEGUM VS. DREAM LAND AVENUES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF H.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-217] [REFERRED TO]
P OBULA REDDY AND ORS VS. RAYEN STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(NCLT)-2016-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
JANAK RAJ AND ANOTHER VS. SUKHDEV AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
GUNTUKA SUDHARNANI VS. GAJJI SURAIAH [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-7-164] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Misra, J. -
(1.)This is a defendant's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. The following two questions of law were referred to the Full Bench : (1) Whether the words 'other sufficient grounds' in Rule 1 (2) (b) of Order 23, Civil P. C., cover grounds other than those mentioned in Rule 1 (2) (a) ? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and on what principles interference under Section 115, Civil P. C., can be justified ?
(2.)The suit wherein these questions arose was one for a declaration to the effect that an oral gift made by the plaintiff, Abdul Rahman, in favour of the defendant, Abdul Ghafoor, his nephew, in 1942 was invalid and ineffectual and the entry of the defendant's name in the khewat wrong and fictitious. The transfer, it was alleged, was never accepted by the donee and the property which it covered remained throughout with the plaintiff. One of the issues which arose for determination in the case thus was whether the plaintiff was in possession of the gifted properties.
(3.)The trial Court considered the question on merits and answered it against the plaintiff. It held that the gift was not invalid and it, therefore, dismissed Abdul Rahman's suit. The plaintiff went up to the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, in appeal but before the case was taken up for hearing, he applied for withdrawal of the action with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The reasons which necessitated the withdrawal were stated to be : (1) That there was a formal defect in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiff inadvertently failed to plead that Section 24, Regulation of Agricultural Credits Act (XIV [14] of 1940) operated to render the gift invalid, and (2) That he omitted to pray alternatively for possession.
(2.)The suit wherein these questions arose was one for a declaration to the effect that an oral gift made by the plaintiff, Abdul Rahman, in favour of the defendant, Abdul Ghafoor, his nephew, in 1942 was invalid and ineffectual and the entry of the defendant's name in the khewat wrong and fictitious. The transfer, it was alleged, was never accepted by the donee and the property which it covered remained throughout with the plaintiff. One of the issues which arose for determination in the case thus was whether the plaintiff was in possession of the gifted properties.
(3.)The trial Court considered the question on merits and answered it against the plaintiff. It held that the gift was not invalid and it, therefore, dismissed Abdul Rahman's suit. The plaintiff went up to the Court of the Civil Judge, Rae Bareli, in appeal but before the case was taken up for hearing, he applied for withdrawal of the action with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The reasons which necessitated the withdrawal were stated to be : (1) That there was a formal defect in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiff inadvertently failed to plead that Section 24, Regulation of Agricultural Credits Act (XIV [14] of 1940) operated to render the gift invalid, and (2) That he omitted to pray alternatively for possession.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.