Skip to content


Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. Ahmad Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914All517; (1914)ILR36All231
AppellantAbdul Rahim Khan
RespondentAhmad Khan
Excerpt:
act (local) - 1901-iii(united provinces land revenue act), section 32 (d)-mahal-lord held revenue-free by the government not of necessity excluded from the mahal. - .....in our opinion it is not a finding of fact, 1 but is a mixed finding of fact and law. we think that the learned judge is not right in saying that the fact that the government was owner of this plot at one time and held it revenue-free is the same thing as that the property ceased to be a part of the mahal. section 32, clause (d), of the land revenue act shows that there may be in the mahal persons holding land revenue-free and the land so held yet forms part of the mahal. in our opinion the finding of the district judge is vitiated by his erroneous view of law. we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned district judge and restore the decree of the court of first instance with costs in all courts.
Judgment:

Ryves and Piggott, JJ.

1. This case was remanded by this Court for a decision of the issue as to whether the land in dispute formed part of the mahal Raipur. The learned Munsif, on the evidence before him, came to the conclusion that it did, He found on the evidence of the patwari that the plot in question was entered in the record of rights as a part of the abadi and that it had a particular number in the Khasra. It also found that the Government ad other portions of land in the same mahal. On appeal the learned Judge says: 'It is obvious that the Government, when it was owner of the plot, held it revenue-free. In other words this plot became Government property and it ceased to be a part of mahal Raipur.' It has been argued that this is a finding of fact which is binding on us. In our opinion it is not a finding of fact, 1 but is a mixed finding of fact and law. We think that the learned Judge is not right in saying that the fact that the Government was owner of this plot at one time and held it revenue-free is the same thing as that the property ceased to be a part of the mahal. Section 32, Clause (d), of the Land Revenue Act shows that there may be in the mahal persons holding land revenue-free and the land so held yet forms part of the mahal. In our opinion the finding of the District Judge is vitiated by his erroneous view of law. We allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and restore the decree of the court of first instance with costs in all courts.


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