That, however, despite warning and numberices the defendants purchased a portion of Kh.
Reason One Tikaram was the husband of respondent No.4 and the father of respondent Nos.
189 admeasuring 3.20 acres, as particularly described in the plaintiff map by letters Pa, Pha, Ba, Bha, Ma and in red companyour, for the alleged companysideration of Rs.8,000/ vide registered sale deed dated 21.1.1959.
1 to 3 have interest in the land by birth and plaintiff No.
As pointed out in Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsunnissa Begum, 1867 11 M.I.A. 551.
On the intervention of relations, a partition was entered into on 11.01.1957, which was duly registered.
Civil Suit No.
The appellants were bona fide purchasers.
The respondents filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No.
189 an area of 8.22 acres was number included in the share of either deceased Tikaram or plaintiff No.1 but was kept joint thereafter.
34 of 1971 challenging the Sale Deed dated 11.02.1959 and seeking other reliefs.
Tikarams father died when Tikaram was a minor.
1, 2 and 3.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has set aside the companycurrent findings of the Courts below resulting in dismissal of the suit filed by the respondents plaintiffs on the ground that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to the CPC as also companystructive res Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by judicata.
Tikaram passed away on 15.07.1959.
The payment of companysideration is fictitious and it never passed.
1 to 3.
The respondents again filed the present suit bearing Civil Suit No.
Plaintiff No.
The plaintiffs have filed C.S. No.
Thereafter, the appellant filed subsequent suit for rendition of accounts for the period from 05.04.2000, which was date on which the partnership deed was executed till 31.07.2004.
Let us number look at the pleadings in the second suit viz.
On 31.01.1969, the Trial Court dismissed the said suit holding that Tikaram was the owner of the property due to the partition effected in the year 1957.
The allegation made by the respondents in the suit was that the land was a joint family ancestral property and he had sold it for immoral purposes and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of joint family.
During the minority of Tikaram, the property was managed by his mother.
It is the said suit which came to be dismissed both by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
He indulged in wasteful habits and therefore sold his joint family ancestral property for immoral purposes and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the joint family.
The respondents sought support from the judgment in Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta6.
That subsequently the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants intended to enter into a companytract of sale with deceased Tikaram in respect of the suit land and hence they served the defendants with a written numberice dated 4.1.1959 asking them to desist from purchasing land mentioned in para 1 e above.
He was addicted to drink and there was numbernecessity to sell the property.
On becoming major, Tikaram fell into bad and immoral habits and grew into a drunkard.
The cause of action in the above suit is the failure of ICO to supply stamps to the respondent in spite of its assurances.
Plaintiff No.
Thereafter, an agreement was entered into to sell the undivided half share.
The Appellate Court, in fact, found that the Trial Court was right in answering the other points.
189 wherein 8.22 acres of land was number included either in the share of deceased Tikaram or plaintiff No.1 but was kept joint.
The present appeal was then filed by special leave.
Being without companysideration, the alienations were number valid and number binding on the plaintiffs and thus liable to be set aside for this reason.
Plaintiff Nos.
The dismissal by the Appellate Court was essentially on the basis of the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the CPC as also companystructive res judicata on the score that the second alienation dated 21.02.1959 ought to have been the subject matter of the earlier suit.
3 was born on 26.08.1959 and therefore he had interest in the suit property.
The suit was decreed.
At the time of partition, plaintiff No.2 though begotten was born afterwards on 02.06.1957 and as such he companyld number and was number made a party to the above partition.
This Court overturned the view of the High Court that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 and by the principles of companystructive res judicata.
22 of 1969 on 10.02.1971.
He was holding 8.22 acres of land in Khasra No.189 at Village Gondia in his name.
The High Court has remanded the matter ARJUN BISHT Date 2019.05.10 180636 IST to the First Appellate Court to decide on merits.
On 21.01.1959, he sold the land to the extent of 3.20 acres out of the total 8.22 acres to the appellants and thereafter, on 11.02.1959, he sold the remaining portion of 4.82 acres of land, which was the balance out of 8.22 acres, also to the appellants.
The same allegations were raised about Tikaram having fallen into immoral habits and growing into an incorrigible drunkard and selling joint family ancestral lands for immoral purposes.
There were also allegations relating to Kh.
The appellants and the respondents entered into a partnership to run an institute at place P in New Delhi.
131 of 1963 for setting aside the Sale Deed dated 21.01.1959 and for other reliefs.
Hence, he had the right to sell the suit land.
The plaintiffs are Hindu and are governed by Mitakshara Law as administered by Benaras School.
The grounds of difference in the suit were found to be as regards the amount of companyfee and the date when the same was purchased.
4 is the mother of plaintiff Nos.
189 from the deceased father of the plaintiffs admeasuring 3.20 acres vide sale deed dated 21.01.1959.
The respondents paid only part of the sale companysideration which led to the suit by the appellant for the balance amount.
On the basis of the same, the respondent claimed for the losses suffered by him along with damages.
Herein also, the plaintiffs and the defendants are the same.
3 2010 10 SCC 141 He was also addicted to other vices.
We may numberice the following That in or about the month of September, 1958, plaintiffs knew that Tikaram wanted to sale their lands and hence they published a general prohibitory numberice in the issue dated 14th September, 1958 of the Hindu Daily NAVBHARAT which has wide circulation at Gondia and the surrounding area warning public in general number to accept any transfer of land from deceased Tikaram.
The Court followed the judgment of this Court in Gurbux 6 2010 10 SCC 141 Singh v. Bhooralal7, and inter alia, held as follows A Division Bench upheld that decision on the grounds that the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and that the appellant had settled all her claims with the respondent under the bayana agreement dated 29.06.2004.
The respondent to ensure the success of his claim, was required to prove that on account of the omission of the appellant i.e failure to provide ICO stamps for the companyfee purchased by them, the respondent suffered losses.
At the time of partition, in Khasra No.
4 the widow of Tikaram had a share with them.
1 to 3.
The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in the plaint were to declare the sale deed as number binding on the interest of plaintiff No.
Thereafter, there were certain further allegations with which we are number companycerned.
Aggrieved by the decree of the Trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal bearing Civil Appeal NO.
34 of 1971.
189 area 8.22 acres situated in village Gondia is the ancestral property of plaintiff Nos.
It is stated inter alia as follows The Bhumidhari land Kh.
4 and for delivery of possession to her or in the alternative a decree for setting aside the sale deed dated 21.01.1957 and for delivery of possession to the plaintiff, enquiry as to mesne profits and for mandatory injunction to demolish certain companystructions.
It also referred to partition dated 11.01.1957.
According to the appellant, the partnership was one at will and was dissolved.
The respondent further averred that the cause of action for the suit arose on various dates when the respondent purchased companyfee from the appellant in the auctions held by them on the assurance that the ICO stamps will be supplied by the appellant to them.
The Court went on further hold that plaintiff companyld only succeed only by proving failure by the appellant to provide stamps.
5 of 1995.
M. JOSEPH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.
