Smt. Hameeda Bano vs Lachchi
2024 Latest Caselaw 21325 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Hameeda Bano vs Lachchi on 6 August, 2024

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                             1                             SA-877-2013
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                       SA No. 877 of 2013
                                              (SMT. HAMEEDA BANO Vs LACHCHI AND OTHERS )



                         Dated : 06-08-2024
                                 Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for the appellant.

                                 Heard on the question of admission.
                                 As per the counsel for the appellant, a suit was filed by the
                         plaintiffs/respondents for declaration that the sale deed dated 27.11.2009 be

declared void as it has been executed by Munni Bai Wd/o Manore in favour

of appellant. Although, it is alleged that after the death of Manore, Munni Bai was remarried to Brijlal, but this fact was not ascertained whether she got remarried with Brijlal or not. However, admittedly, Manore was one of the coparceners of undivided joint Hindu Family property and as such, after the death of Manore, Munni Bai being the widow was having absolute right to sell the undivided share of the property of Manore and therefore, she executed the sale deed in favour of the present appellant, namely, Hameeda Bano.

Although, both the Courts have decided that Munni Bai is having no

absolute right to execute the sale deed unless partition takes place in the undivided joint Hindu family property. Shri Kochar submits that the findings given by both the Courts are contrary to law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhram and Another Vs. Gauri Shankar reported in AIR 1968 SC 365 , and as such, according to him, the judgment passed by both the Courts are liable to be set aside.

2 SA-877-2013 Considering the submissions made the counsel for the appellant and perusal of record, this appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether the finding given by both the Courts decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents holding that Munni Bai was having no absolute right to execute the sale deed in absence of partition of joint Hindu family property, the view taken by both the Courts is against the law as laid by the Supreme Court in case of Sukhram and Another Vs. Gauri Shankar reported in AIR 1968 SC 365 ?"

Although, on earlier occasion notices were issued to the respondents vide order dated 19.12.2013, but only respondent No.1 was represented by the counsel and the said counsel is no more, therefore, it is required that fresh notices be issued to respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are contesting respondents.

As such, notice of this appeal as well as of I.A. No.11497/2013 be issued to the respondents on payment of process fee within a period of seven days by RAD mode, returnable within six weeks.

Interim relief granted on 19.12.2013 that till decision of appeal, no third party right be created in favour of any other person in respect of the land in question, shall continue till next date of hearing.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

3 SA-877-2013 ac/-