Case Brief: Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain &; Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo
The Legal Lock

NAME OF THE CASE | Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors vs Ramakant Eknath Jajoo |
CITATION | (2009) 5 SCC 713 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | March 23, 2009 |
APPELLANT | Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain |
RESPONDENT | Ramakant Eknath Jajoo |
BENCH/JUDGE | Mukundakam Sharma J. ; S.B. Sinha J. |
STATUTES INVOLVED | Indian Evidence Act, 1872Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Transfer of Property Act, 1882 |
IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES | Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
Facts of the case:
A registered sale deed was initiated by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant in this case is Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain and the respondent being Ramakant Eknath Jajoo. According to the sale deed, it was held that the property had got transferred to the buyer named Ramakant Jajoo. However, even after the execution of the sale deed, the appellants continued to possess the property that was sold to the respondents (according to the sale deed).
The dispute arose and it moved to the trial court by the petitioner, who is the respondent in the given case. It was claimed by them that the property was sold through a valid and registered sale deed and thereby would sought possession over the property. It was also held in one of the clauses of the sale deed that of the buyer would ever get disposed off from the property, he would be compensated by the seller of the property. To this, the trial court dismissed the suit filed, stating that there was no actual transaction that took place, for which the sale was not real. Therefore, the appellant would not be able to claim possession over the property.
The case was filed as an appeal by the respondent, challenging the decision of the High Court. The case moved to the first appellate court where by the court held that the appeal filed was valid. It overruled the decision of the Trial court stating that the respondent would be entitled to possession over the property. The sale deed was held valid and registered, thereby enforceable by law.
More to Read
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. — (2010) 8 SCC 24
case briefs
AMAZON.COM NV INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC V. FUTURE RETAIL LTD. & ORS.
case briefs
ONGC LTD. V. SAW PIPES LTD, (2003) 5 SCC 705
case briefs
Mankastu Impex Private Limited vs Airvisual Limited
case briefs
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India — (2005) 6 SCC 344
case briefs
Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc. (BALCO) — (2012) 9 SCC 552
case briefs