Skip to content


Babu Lal Vs. Ghansham Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All205; (1922)ILR44All633; 70Ind.Cas.84
AppellantBabu Lal
RespondentGhansham Das and anr.
Excerpt:
muhammadan law - gift--condition against alienation--such a condition between muhammadans invalid. - - 1. the facts out of which this appeal arises are so clearly staled in the judgment under appeal that it is unnecessary for us to recapitulate them......of mehdi hasan did or did not inherit a fractional share in a certain house on the death of one wazir muhammad. wazir muhammad's interest in that house was derived from a deed of gift and. before his death he had executed another deed by which ho returned his share in the house to his own donor, ahsan-ullah khan. if wazir muhammad had a right to gift this property back to ahsan-ullah khan, then it did not belong to him at his death and under no circumstances could mehdi hasan inherit anything. it is contended that wazir muhammad himself held only a life-estate. the court below has discussed the matter only with reference to the terms of the transfer of property act; but the parties are muhammadans, and we do not see our way to take this case out of the operation of the principle.....
Judgment:

Piggott and Walsh, JJ.

1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are so clearly staled in the judgment under appeal that it is unnecessary for us to recapitulate them. The question in issue is whether an insolvent of the name of Mehdi Hasan did or did not inherit a fractional share in a certain house on the death of one Wazir Muhammad. Wazir Muhammad's interest in that house was derived from a deed of gift and. before his death he had executed another deed by which ho returned his share in the house to his own donor, Ahsan-ullah Khan. If Wazir Muhammad had a right to gift this property back to Ahsan-ullah Khan, then it did not belong to him at his death and under no circumstances could Mehdi Hasan inherit anything. It is contended that Wazir Muhammad himself held only a life-estate. The court below has discussed the matter only with reference to the terms of the Transfer of Property Act; but the parties are Muhammadans, and we do not see our way to take this case out of the operation of the principle recognized by this Court in Abdul Karim Khan v. Abdul Qayum Khan, (1906) I.L.R. 28 All. 342 and by the Bombay High Court in Nizam-ud-din Ghulam v. Abdul Ghafur (1888) I.L.R. 13 Bom. 264. It would seem that this point was not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge when he was dealing with this matter. We must allow the appeal. We set aside the order of the court below and affirm the objection of the appellant. The appellant is entitled to his costs in both courts, which the receiver may charge against the insolvent's estate.


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