Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

F. Whether the learned first appellate Court had erred in law for not taking into consideration in the admissions of plaintiff No.2 with respect to the suit property bearing Khasra No.22 being property of private family Trust named "Shri. Deo Balkrishna Deoghar Deosthan?
G. Whether the plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of the impugned sale deeds and consequently was the suit filed
-- 15 -- SA 207.2021 (J) -.odt within limitation?"

(62) Substantial question of law is answered accordingly by holding that defendant Nos.6 to 9 will be entitled to 5/16th share in the suit property, which is the share of defendant No.1 as on the date of execution and registration of the impugned sale deeds.

-- 41 -- SA 207.2021 (J) -.odt SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW G Whether the plaintiffs had constructive knowledge of the impugned sale deeds and consequently was the suit filed within limitation?

-- 48 -- SA 207.2021 (J) -.odt the suit properties in the year 1968, pursuant to which many family members had transferred their shares in the properties by registered sale deeds in the year 1978. The suit property was subject matter of partition. It is in this factual situation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the date of registration of sale deed will be the date of constructive knowledge of the sale deeds challenged in the suit, since the plaint was silent with respect to the date on which the plaintiffs became aware about the impugned sale deeds.