Skip to content


Umrao Begam Vs. the Land Mortgage Bank of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All547
AppellantUmrao Begam
RespondentThe Land Mortgage Bank of India
Excerpt:
act xviii of 1873 (north-western provinces rent act), section 9 - landholder--right of occupancy tenant--transfer of right of occupancy in execution of decree. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the..........rights in execution of decree is, in the general form in which it is stated, opposed to the full bench ruling of this court, dated 19th february 1877 in ablakh rai v. udit narain rai i.l.r. 1 all. 353. but in the case out of which that ruling arose the person who sought to bring to sale an occupancy right possessed by his judgment-debtor in a holding was not the zamindar, the proprietor of the land. in the present case the decree-holder is himself the zamindar. the section appears to have been enacted in the interest of landholders, who may presumably waive the privilege it confers on them. it would be unreasonable to hold that a landholder should not be free to cause the sale in execution of his own decree of the occupancy right of his own judgment-debtor in land belonging to himself......
Judgment:

Pearson, J.

1. The lower Court's view that Section 9 of the Rent Act applies to private transfers of occupancy-rights only and not to sales of such rights in execution of decree is, in the general form in which it is stated, opposed to the Full Bench ruling of this Court, dated 19th February 1877 in Ablakh Rai v. Udit Narain Rai I.L.R. 1 All. 353. But in the case out of which that ruling arose the person who sought to bring to sale an occupancy right possessed by his judgment-debtor in a holding was not the zamindar, the proprietor of the land. In the present case the decree-holder is himself the zamindar. The section appears to have been enacted in the interest of landholders, who may presumably waive the privilege it confers on them. It would be unreasonable to hold that a landholder should not be free to cause the sale in execution of his own decree of the occupancy right of his own judgment-debtor in land belonging to himself. Such a case cannot fall within the scope of the Full Bench ruling above mentioned. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //