Skip to content


Sahu Munna Lal and ors. Vs. Mahtab and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All360
AppellantSahu Munna Lal and ors.
RespondentMahtab and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of a certain sale-deed executed by one party of the defendants in favour of another party of the defendants and for possession of the grove which formed the subject-matter of the sale-deed. both the lower courts allowed cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove but rejected the rest of the suit. the appellant comes in second appeal saying that the deed should have been cancelled in toto and possession given to him.2. i may point out that the decree for cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove was not a proper one. a written instrument under section 40, specific relief act, can be cancelled in part, but that is not.....
Judgment:

Ashworth, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of a certain sale-deed executed by one party of the defendants in favour of another party of the defendants and for possession of the grove which formed the subject-matter of the sale-deed. Both the lower Courts allowed cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove but rejected the rest of the suit. The appellant comes in second appeal saying that the deed should have been cancelled in toto and possession given to him.

2. I may point out that the decree for cancellation of the sale-deed in so far as it purported to sell the land of the grove was not a proper one. A written instrument under Section 40, Specific Relief Act, can be cancelled in part, but that is not what has been done here.

3. What in effect is intended is that the deed shall be declared not to be operative against the plaintiff so far as it purports to transfer the right of absolute ownership in the land.

4. The appellant's contention in this appeal is that a grove-holder previous to the passing of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 was not entitled to transfer his interest in land. Reliance has been placed on the case of Wahida Khatun v. Bulaqi Das [1906] 3 A.L.J. 385. That decision has no bearing on the present facts. In that case an agricultural tenant planted trees on his holding and then proceeded to transfer the holding in perpetuity along with the trees. An agricultural tenant had no interest which he could transfer in perpetuity, and consequently his action amounted to an abandonment of his tenancy. When this tenancy ceased he ceased to have any right in the trees planted by him as a tenant. That was not a case where a grove-holder purported to transfer his interest in the land, namely the right to occupy the land so long as the grove was maintained, That right has always been affirmed in respect of grove-holders even before the passing of the Tenancy Act of 1926. Section 197, 01. (b) of that Act merely re-enacted the existing law. Where a person transfers land this always means that he transfers his interest in the land If in the said-deed an interest greater than that possessed by the transferrer is asserted to be transferred, then the deed of transfer furnishes the paramount owner with a right to sue either for cancellation of the deed or for a declaration that his title is not to be affected by the deed. Otherwise a transfer of land is only a brief way of stating that the transfer is of the interest of the transferrer in the land.

5. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.


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