Skip to content


Balbhaddar Prasad Vs. Mt. Bitto - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929All754; 118Ind.Cas.188
AppellantBalbhaddar Prasad
RespondentMt. Bitto
Excerpt:
- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - 2. in our opinion, the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it......revision from an order, dated 14th january 1928, refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw the money deposited under section 83, t.p. act, by the mortgagor. the money was deposited in favour of the present applicant and his father on 16th october 1922. an application was made on 9th december 1922, on behalf of the present applicant alone, which was consigned to the record room on the ground that both the mortgagees had not joined. later on, a fresh application was made by the applicant, alleging that his father had not been heard of for more than seven years, and must be presumed to be dead. the learned judge has considered that he is not competent to make enquiries into the death of the applicant's father, and has thought that without the consent of the mortgagor he cannot order the.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application is revision from an order, dated 14th January 1928, refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw the money deposited under Section 83, T.P. Act, by the mortgagor. The money was deposited in favour of the present applicant and his father on 16th October 1922. An application was made on 9th December 1922, on behalf of the present applicant alone, which was consigned to the record room on the ground that both the mortgagees had not joined. Later on, a fresh application was made by the applicant, alleging that his father had not been heard of for more than seven years, and must be presumed to be dead. The learned Judge has considered that he is not competent to make enquiries into the death of the applicant's father, and has thought that without the consent of the mortgagor he cannot order the money to be paid to only one of the mortgagees.

2. In our opinion, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it. The amount was deposited to the credit of the two mortgagees; but the Court was competent to consider who the mortgagee was at the time when the application was made, that is to say, whether the present applicant was alone entitled to withdraw the money. This may be so, because he is now the sole surviving member of the family, or it may be that he is the karta of the Hindu family or otherwise authorized to withdraw the money. We accordingly set aside the order and send this case back or disposal according to law.


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