Skip to content


Mt. Ram Dei Vs. Mt. Gyorsi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 338 of 1942
Judge
Reported inAIR1950All76
ActsHindu Law
AppellantMt. Ram Dei
RespondentMt. Gyorsi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.K. Dhaon and ;S.B. Bajpai, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateHarish Chandra and ;M.P. Nigam, Advs. for Nos. 1 to 3 and ;R.B. Lal, Adv. for No. 2
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - ram dei defendant, had neither a right of residence nor the right of maintenance in the property which was the subject-matter of transfer by ram kumar to plaintiffs 1 and 2. this appeal must, therefore, fail on both the grounds urged before the bench at the time of the hearring in 1943. 2. the learned counsel for the appellant, however, now seeks further to challenge the sale made by ram kumar in 1940 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2..........in our order of reference dated 12th april 1948, we held that mt. ram dei defendant, had neither a right of residence nor the right of maintenance in the property which was the subject-matter of transfer by ram kumar to plaintiffs 1 and 2. this appeal must, therefore, fail on both the grounds urged before the bench at the time of the hearring in 1943.2. the learned counsel for the appellant, however, now seeks further to challenge the sale made by ram kumar in 1940 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 on the ground that it was not supported by legal necessity or by any antecedent debt. we are somewhat disinclined to permit fresh contentions being raised at this stage of the case. we prefer, however, to overrule the plea on another ground. it would be remembered that mt. ram dei claimed.....
Judgment:

1. The answer of the Full Bench is to the effect that the self, acquired property of a Hindu father which his sons, who were joint with him, got on his death is in their hands joint family property and as between the sons and their descendants it is subject to all the incidents of a coparcenary. In our order of reference dated 12th April 1948, we held that Mt. Ram Dei defendant, had neither a right of residence nor the right of maintenance in the property which was the subject-matter of transfer by Ram Kumar to plaintiffs 1 and 2. This appeal must, therefore, fail on both the grounds urged before the Bench at the time of the hearring in 1943.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, now seeks further to challenge the sale made by Ram Kumar in 1940 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 on the ground that it was not supported by legal necessity or by any antecedent debt. We are somewhat disinclined to permit fresh contentions being raised at this stage of the case. We prefer, however, to overrule the plea on another ground. It would be remembered that Mt. Ram Dei claimed possession of the property only for purpose of residence and in the right of a person entitled to maintenance. It has already been held that she does not possess these rights any longer in view of her relinquishment. There can be no doubt that Mt. Ram Dei is outside the coparcenary body. In view of the settled law that an alienation can be impeached only by a coparcener or by a transferee who has acquired the interest of the entire joint family in the property alienated, the defendant appellant is out of Court: she has no power of avoidance of the transfer and is therefore not entitled to raise a plea in that behalf. See in this connection Madan Lal v. Gajendrapal Singh : AIR1929All243 and Madan Lal v. Chiddu : AIR1930All852 .

3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

4. The stay order dated 7th December 1942, is vacated.


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