Skip to content


Mt. Bilasi and anr. Vs. Bijai NaraIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All566
AppellantMt. Bilasi and anr.
RespondentBijai NaraIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....suit, so far as the deed of transfer which is impugned purports to transfer the goodwill of mt. bilasi's business in selling fuel, it does no harm to the plaintiffs, but so far as it purports to transfer a right to use the land of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have a cause of action. no customary right to use land for a certain purpose is consistent with the fact of the land being leased from another party. in ramu ghatia v. hemanta kumari debi a.i.r. 1921 all. 294. it was held that the mere fact that persons acting on a license for use of a bathing ghat administered to the wants of the public on that ghat could not give the licensees any title outside the license against the owner of the ghat. the present case is even stronger. mt. bilasi was a tenant and not a licensee.4. for the.....
Judgment:

Ashworth, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that a certain sale deed executed by one Mt. Bilasi in favour of the defendants-appellants by which she purported to sell her interest in certain land used for the stacking of fuel supplied at a burning ghat was null and void. The possession of the land and mesne profits were also claimed.

2. It has been found by the lower Courts that the plaintiffs owned the land and that Mt. Bilasi had been their tenant on an annual rent, but that she had made a denial of their title by transferring the land and the goodwill of her business to the defendants. Both the lower Courts decreed the suit. In second appeal it has been argued that Mt. Bilasi was possessed of a right to sell fuel at the place in question and that she could transfer this right. Reference is made by counsel of the appellants to the case of Sukh Lal v. Bishambhar [1917] 39 All. 196 where it was held that there was nothing in the law to prevent a Maha Brahmin mortgaging his right to offerings receivable by him in his professional capacity. But in that suit there was no attempt to transfer any interest in land. What was transferred was merely what may be called the goodwill of the business.

3. In the present suit, so far as the deed of transfer which is impugned purports to transfer the goodwill of Mt. Bilasi's business in selling fuel, it does no harm to the plaintiffs, but so far as it purports to transfer a right to use the land of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have a cause of action. No customary right to use land for a certain purpose is consistent with the fact of the land being leased from another party. In Ramu Ghatia v. Hemanta Kumari Debi A.I.R. 1921 All. 294. it was held that the mere fact that persons acting on a license for use of a bathing ghat administered to the wants of the public on that ghat could not give the licensees any title outside the license against the owner of the ghat. The present case is even stronger. Mt. Bilasi was a tenant and not a licensee.

4. For the above reasons I think that the suit was rightly decided and dismiss the appeal.


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