Skip to content


Rai Sahib Pandit Sheo Kumar Vs. Rai Bahadur Balbhaddar Prasad Tewari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in147Ind.Cas.185
AppellantRai Sahib Pandit Sheo Kumar
RespondentRai Bahadur Balbhaddar Prasad Tewari
Excerpt:
allahabad high court general rules (civil, chapter iv, rule 8, para,(a) - ancestral land--gift of property by maternal grandfather of judgment debtor's father to judgment-debtor's father after 1860--property, if ancestral land--execution--sale by collector--validity. - .....fact that instead of passing by inheritance the property in question has passed by gift renders it impossible to hold that the property is now ancestral land within the meaning of the rule in question. accordingly we dismiss this first appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. This is a first appeal from an order in execution brought by the judgment-debtor. The point in appeal is an allegation that the property which the decree holder desires to sell is ancestral property and therefore the sale should be by the collector. In General Rules (Civil) Chapter IV, Rule 8, there is a definition of the words 'ancestral land' and the definition lays down in para, (a) that the land must have been owned continuously in the province of Agra from January 1, 1860, by the proprietor or by the person or person's from whom such proprietor has directly or indirectly inherited such lands. It is contended that the case in question could come under the Sub-heads (b), (c) or (d). Now the evidence establishes that the maternal grandfather of the father of the judgment-debtor made a gift of the property in question to the father of the judgment-debtor. It is also admitted that this gift was after the Fasli year 1280, that is, after the year 1872 or 1872. Accordingly the gift was made after January 1, 1860. The conditions therefore of Rule 8 (a) have not been fulfilled because a gift has intervened and it has not been a case of a direct holding or a transfer by inheritance only. Some suggestion was made that the donee might have inherited from the donor; but even if that were so, the fact that instead of passing by inheritance the property in question has passed by gift renders it impossible to hold that the property is now ancestral land within the meaning of the rule in question. Accordingly we dismiss this first appeal with costs.


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