Skip to content


Bindraban Vs. Durag Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All220
AppellantBindraban
RespondentDurag Singh
Excerpt:
- .....estate.2. the main ground urged before us is that because the vendor has himself now become the legal representative of the pre-emptor he should be estopped from taking any benefit from the decree. in our opinion this contention has no force whatsoever. the pre-emption suit was decreed in favour of mt. nannhi bahu, in whom the property became vested as soon as she deposited the pre-emption money. the vendor has now succeeded to her estate as the legal heir. he is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff for the purposes of this appeal, he is not defending this appeal in his own right or in his capacity as a vendor, but as the legal representative of the decree-holder. we do not see why this fact should in any way handicap him. there can be no estoppel as the succession has.....
Judgment:

1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by Mt. Nannhi Bahu against the vendee Bindraban impleading the vendor Durag Singh. The suit, was decreed by the first Court and the decree was affirmedly the lower appellate Court on 24th February 1927. The pre-emption money was paid by the decree-holder, and under 0. 20, Rule 14(b) the title to the property accrued to her from the date of such payment. She however, died, and after her death a second appeal was filed in this Court on 20th May 1927, against the vendor Durag Singh who, it now appears, has succeeded to her estate.

2. The main ground urged before us is that because the vendor has himself now become the legal representative of the pre-emptor he should be estopped from taking any benefit from the decree. In our opinion this contention has no force whatsoever. The pre-emption suit was decreed in favour of Mt. Nannhi Bahu, in whom the property became vested as soon as she deposited the pre-emption money. The vendor has now succeeded to her estate as the legal heir. He is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff for the purposes of this appeal, He is not defending this appeal in his own right or in his capacity as a vendor, but as the legal representative of the decree-holder. We do not see why this fact should in any way handicap him. There can be no estoppel as the succession has come into effect by operation of law and inheritance.

3. The other two grounds of appeal have no force and cannot be seriously pressed. The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs as no one appears for the respondent.


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