Skip to content


Sheo Das Vs. Rama Nand Bharti and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1921)ILR43All314
AppellantSheo Das
RespondentRama Nand Bharti And; Ram Khelawan and ors.
Excerpt:
act no iv of 1882 (transfer of property act), section 55, clause (4)(b) - sale pre-emption--part of purchase money left with vendee to pay to creditor of vendor, but not so utilized--unpaid vendor's lien. - - 1. this order was clearly right. 201, the only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6, but in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was no notice......his plaint being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6, but in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was no notice. great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of gur dayal singh v. karam singh (1916) i.l.r. 38 all. 254, in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase money.' that dictum was hot necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that probably at some future date it will require further consideration. the appeal must.....
Judgment:

Walsh and Ryves, JJ.

1. This order was clearly right. We cannot improve upon the admirable judgment of the lower appellate court. There is obviously a serious question as to whether the plaintiff can establish a charge for more than Rs. 201, the only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6, But in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was no notice. Great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Gur Dayal Singh v. Karam Singh (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 254, in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase money.' That dictum was Hot necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that probably at some future date it will require further consideration. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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