Skip to content


Shahzad Singh Vs. Madan Gopal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All146; 140Ind.Cas.120
AppellantShahzad Singh
RespondentMadan Gopal and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....before me. he (shahzad singh) was impleaded in the suit which was based on a bond, executed by one kumar singh, on the allegation that shahzad singh was a universal donee and was therefore liable to pay the debt to the extent of property received by him under the gift. defendant, kumar singh pleaded that he had no property and he had handed over everything to shahzad singh. shahzad singh led evidence to the effect that the donor was still possessed of a house and a large number of cattle. this evidence has been disbelieved by the court below. it appears that after the deed of gift was executed, kumar singh instituted a suit against shahzad singh to contest the validity of the gift. there was a compromise by which kumar singh was given 6 bighas of land to be held by him on payment of a.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. Defendant 2 in a suit for money, is the applicant before me. He (Shahzad Singh) was impleaded in the suit which was based on a bond, executed by one Kumar Singh, on the allegation that Shahzad Singh was a universal donee and was therefore liable to pay the debt to the extent of property received by him under the gift. Defendant, Kumar Singh pleaded that he had no property and he had handed over everything to Shahzad Singh. Shahzad Singh led evidence to the effect that the donor was still possessed of a house and a large number of cattle. This evidence has been disbelieved by the Court below. It appears that after the deed of gift was executed, Kumar Singh instituted a suit against Shahzad Singh to contest the validity of the gift. There was a compromise by which Kumar Singh was given 6 bighas of land to be held by him on payment of a rent of Rs. 12 per annum to Shahzad Singh, with the condition attached that in the case of his death without a male issue, the property would revert to Shahzad Singh. The donor in the deed of gift recites that he was still unmarried and he was not likely to marry. In the circumstances, the question is whether the Court below was wrong in holding that the applicant before me was a universal donee.

2. I am not prepared to say that the Court below was wrong. For all practical purposes the applicant holds the entire property of Kumar Singh. The applicant has agreed to pay the secured debts but evidently does not want to pay the unsecured debts. If he finds the property to be burdened with too much debts, it is open to him to throw away the property. There is however one defect in the decree of the Court below and it is this: that a personal decree has been made against the applicant. The applicant is liable only to the extent of the property received by him under the gift and not duly applied by him towards the payment of the debts.

3. Accordingly I modify, the decree of the Court below by substituting the following, so far as the applicant Shahzad Singh is concerned, namely, Shahzad Singh shall be liable for the entire decretal amount as decreed by the Court below to the extent of the property received by him under the deed of gift and not property applied by him towards the payment of the donor's debts. The applicant must pay the costs, including counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.


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