Skip to content


Debi Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Jaldhar Chaube and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946All125
AppellantDebi Prasad Singh and anr.
RespondentJaldhar Chaube and ors.
Excerpt:
- 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 employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........the learned judge of the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that there had been no valid exchange and that the appellants had ac quired no interest in the village before the execution of the deed of sale in their favour. the appellants had set up an unregistered deed of sale which they said that they had lost. the trial court held that the exchange was not effected by this deed as it was an unregistered deed but that there was a valid exchange on account of delivery of possession. the learned judge of the lower appellate court held that a delivery to validate an exchange must be a physical and not a constructive delivery of possession and consequently that there was no valid exchange and that the appellants were not in a position, to contest the suit for pre-emption. in.....
Judgment:

Allsop, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decrees of the District Judge of Basti (or, more accurately, the Additional District Judge of Gorakhpur at Basti) passed in three appeals which were consolidated before him. Two of the appeals arose out of the suits for pre-emption of a deed of sale which for the purposes of this appeal I may describe as one in favour of the appellants, Kedar Nath and Debi Prasad, transferring a certain share in the village of Manikpur in consideration for a sum of Rs. 100. This deed was executed in the year 1940. The appellants had in the year 1939 purported to effect an exchange by which they had acquired a two pie share in this village and they set up the defence that they were cosharers in the village at the time of the execution of the deed of sale. The third suit which led to an appeal to the Court of the Additional District Judge arose out of a suit instituted by one of the Plaintiffs in the other two suits to pre-empt this exchange. The trial Court held that the exchange was valid and consequently dismissed all the suits. The suit for the pre-emption of the alleged exchange was based on an allegation that it was in effect a sale. The question is now of no importance. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that there had been no valid exchange and that the appellants had ac quired no interest in the village before the execution of the deed of sale in their favour. The appellants had set up an unregistered deed of sale which they said that they had lost. The trial Court held that the exchange was not effected by this deed as it was an unregistered deed but that there was a valid exchange on account of delivery of possession. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that a delivery to validate an exchange must be a physical and not a constructive delivery of possession and consequently that there was no valid exchange and that the appellants were not in a position, to contest the suit for pre-emption. In my judgment there is no doubt that he was right. The provision which allows an exchange or sale by means of delivery of possession refers only to tangible immovable property. The share of two pies in the mahal is not capable of being touched and cannot be described as tangible. The result is that there can be no exchange or sale of a share of this nature without the execution of a properly registered deed. There is no force in this appeal and I dismiss it with costs.


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