Skip to content


Mannu Lal and After His Death Jhunni Lal and ors. Vs. Sri Thakur Radah Kishenji Maharaj Through Its Manager NaraIn Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916All302; 36Ind.Cas.989
AppellantMannu Lal and After His Death Jhunni Lal and ors.
RespondentSri Thakur Radah Kishenji Maharaj Through Its Manager NaraIn Das and ors.
Excerpt:
transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 123, applicability of - religions gifts--registration, necessity of. - .....a house (one-third of which maiku hypothecated). the court of first instance held that the alleged dedication was never made. the lower appellate court held that there was a dedication. we doubt very much that there ever was a dedication. it looks very much as if dedication was alleged merely with the object of defrauding the creditors of maiku. however, the finding of the additional district judge, so far as it is a finding of fact, is binding on us in second appeal. the only question we have to decide is whether in the absence of a registered deed of gift the alleged dedication is valid. in our opinion the provisions of section 123 apply to religious gifts. we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore the decree of the court of first.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that a security-bond executed by one Maiku was null and void against them. The suit is brought in the names of Sri Thakur Radha Krishna and Narain Das. Narain Das, Maiku and Gur Prasad were brothers. The allegation in the plaint is that the three brothers were joint and that they dedicated a house (one-third of which Maiku hypothecated). The Court of first instance held that the alleged dedication was never made. The lower Appellate Court held that there was a dedication. We doubt very much that there ever was a dedication. It looks very much as if dedication was alleged merely with the object of defrauding the creditors of Maiku. However, the finding of the Additional District Judge, so far as it is a finding of fact, is binding on us in second appeal. The only question we have to decide is whether in the absence of a registered deed of gift the alleged dedication is valid. In our opinion the provisions of Section 123 apply to religious gifts. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all. Courts, including fees on the higher scale.


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