Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SEWA RAM AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Decided
1 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 490 · 1997 INSC 346

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated 31.7.1979 of the High Court of Allahabad made in Civil Revision No. 84 of 1978.

p. 490, margin F

The admitted position is that one Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui had migrated to Pakistan prior to August 14, 1947 and became a citizen of Pakistan. His mother Kabool Fatima who remained in India died on August 7, 1965. Subsequently, he came to India and appears to have obtained the Bhumidari rights of his mother and sold the property to the appellants. The respondents had initiated proceedings against the property on the ground that Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui was an enemy and therefore, the Enemy Property Act, 1968 (Act No. 34 of 1968) was applicable. The appellants claimed title to the property. Subsequent thereto, the appellants filed a suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the property. Ultimately they came to be unsuccessful in the revision before the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 490–491, margin F

The only question is whether the appellants have acquired any valid title to the property from Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui, a citizen of Pakistan? On his acquiring citizenship of Pakistan, M.M. Siddiqui ceased to be a citizen of India and thereby after the demise of his mother, he had no right, title or interest in the land to obtain bhumidari right. The proceedings and ~~~-

p. 491, margin B

Under these circumstances, since the purchaser cannot have a better title than the seller himself had,. the appellants could not acquire any title by virtue of sale effected by Mohd. Marghoob Siddiqui.

p. 491, margin C

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 491, margin D