Skip to content


Sheo Rattan Rai and ors. Vs. Mohri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All354
AppellantSheo Rattan Rai and ors.
RespondentMohri
Excerpt:
act no. 1 of 1894 (land acquisition act), sections 18, 19, 82 and 54 - reference by collector to judge--appeal from judges' order--court fee--decree or order. - - i of 1894, we set aside the order of the court below, and direct that, under the provisions of section 32, the money 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 purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such government or other approved securities as the court shall think fit......necessity. the district judge, in the face of an objection by the reversioners, has ordered the purchase-money to be paid to the musammat. this order cannot stand. the case is manifestly one provided for by section 32 of act no. i of 1894, we set aside the order of the court below, and direct that, under the provisions of section 32, the money 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 purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such government or other approved securities as the court shall think fit. payment of the rent or other proceeds of such investment will be made to musammat mohri as the person for the time being.....
Judgment:

Blair and Burkitt, JJ.

4. This case arises under the Land Acquisition Act, No. I of 1894. Land had been taken in which the respondent here had a life estate. Whether that of a Hindu widow or a daughter we are not informed. In neither case had she the power to alienate except for legal necessity. The District Judge, in the face of an objection by the reversioners, has ordered the purchase-money to be paid to the Musammat. This order cannot stand. The case is manifestly one provided for by Section 32 of Act No. I of 1894, We set aside the order of the Court below, and direct that, under the provisions of Section 32, the money 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 purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government or other approved securities as the Court shall think fit. Payment of the rent or other proceeds of such investment will be made to Musammat Mohri as the person for the time being entitled to the possession of such land. The Judge will further strictly comply with the other provisions of Section 32. We make no order as to costs.


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