Skip to content


Sheo Prasad Singh Vs. Jaleha Kunwar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR24All189
AppellantSheo Prasad Singh
RespondentJaleha Kunwar and anr.
Excerpt:
.....be allotted. - - it is clear that this section contemplates a present power to alienate, and it is also well settled that hindu widows cannot, of their own free will, alienate property except for special legal necessities. 96. we consider that the decision in that case was perfectly correct and governs the present case, and we most therefore allow the appeal, and pass an order under the provisions of section 32 of the land acquisition act, directing that the compensation money awarded shall be invested in the purchase of other lands to be held under the like title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall have been deposited was held, or if such purchases cannot be effected forthwith, then in such government or other approved securities as the.....john stanley, c.j. and burkitt, j.1. the question in this appeal arises under the land acquisition act. certain property was taken over by government, the present owners of which are two hindu widows whose husbands owned the property. a party, representing himself to be the reversionary heir, has objected to the payment of the compensation money to the widows on the ground that they were not parties competent to alienate the land, within the provisions of section 31 of the land acquisition act. it is clear that this section contemplates a present power to alienate, and it is also well settled that hindu widows cannot, of their own free will, alienate property except for special legal necessities. this was so decided in the case of sheoratan rai v. mohri weekly notes 1899 p. 96. we.....
Judgment:

John Stanley, C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. The question in this appeal arises under the Land Acquisition Act. Certain property was taken over by Government, the present owners of which are two Hindu widows whose husbands owned the property. A party, representing himself to be the reversionary heir, has objected to the payment of the compensation money to the widows on the ground that they were not parties competent to alienate the land, within the provisions of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear that this section contemplates a present power to alienate, and it is also well settled that Hindu widows cannot, of their own free will, alienate property except for special legal necessities. This was so decided in the case of Sheoratan Rai v. Mohri Weekly Notes 1899 p. 96. We consider that the decision in that case was perfectly correct and governs the present case, and we most therefore allow the appeal, and pass an order under the provisions of Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, directing that the compensation money awarded shall be invested in the purchase of other lands to be held under the like title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall have been deposited was held, or if such purchases cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government or other approved securities as the Court shall think fit, and we direct that the payment of interest, rent or other proceeds of any such investment be made to the respondents as the persons for the time being entitled to the land. The appeal is allowed with costs.


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