After obtaining the permission from the municipality she had companystructed the house by herself after taking loans from various sources and thereby she is the absolute owner of the built in house.
No credence can be given to his evidence.
The trial Court decreed the suit No.
But on appeal is was reversed and the suit was dismissed.
It is incredible to believe that after two years he had sold the property for less than the purchase price of 1969.
7 A of 1972.
27,000/ whereas the Municipal Overseer, P.W.4 examined on behalf of the appellant had proved that the companyt of the companystruction was Rs.
Who High Court was number right in reversing the decree.
The burden is on the respondent State to prove that this is a case of benami transaction and that the third defendant husband of the appellant is the real owner.
The said Radheshyam is numberother than the clerk of Jagdish Prasad, P.W.1.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The State had miserably failed to do the same.
45,000/ .
4,000/ .
Evidence of one Himmatbhai, a relation of the appellant, of her leading money, was disbelieved.
PW 1, Jagdish Prasad examined on behalf to the plaintiff, had admitted that he purchased the plot in 1969 for Rs.
The High Court has pointed out in paragraphs 5 an 6 of the judgment the entire evidence.
4425/ and in 1971, he is stated to have sold the property for Rs.
80/75.
The finding is based on oral testimony of the witnesses.
Her plea was hat the had purchased a plot on September 23, 1971 by herself out of her own money.
63.063.25 towards arrears of sales tax from the appellants husband impleaded as 3rd defendant in the suit.
For S.K.M. Mehta, Adv.
With him for the Respondents.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench, made on April 19, 1980 in F.A. No.
for the appellant N. Bhachawat, Sr.
The appellant had filed the suit for declaration of her right to and little in the suit property suited in Shankar Ward, Phatapara Municipality in Madhya Pradesh and for incidental injunction restraining the defendants from selling of the same.
NP , Niraj Sharma, S.K. Agnihotri, Advs.
P.W.3, a companytractor who companystructed the house during October 1970, had stated that the companyt of companystruction was Rs.
A.K. Sanghi Adv.
therefore, the said house is number liable to attachment and sale to recover Rs.
