Skip to content


Rama Nand Bharti Vs. Sheo Dass and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All54; 60Ind.Cas.933
AppellantRama Nand Bharti
RespondentSheo Dass and ors.
Cases ReferredQur Uayal Singh v. Karam. Singh
Excerpt:
.....this order was clearly right. 201. the only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint, being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6 but in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was we notice......his plaint, being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6 but in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was we notice. great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of qur uayal singh v. karam. singh (i) in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 page of 88a.--[ed.]of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase went.' that dictum was not necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that probably, at some future date, it will quite further consideration. the appeal must be.....
Judgment:

1. This order was clearly right. We cannot improve upon the admirable judgment of the lower Appellate Court. There is obviously a serious question as to whether the plaintiff can establish a charge for more than Rs. 201. The only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint, being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6 But in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was we notice. Great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Qur Uayal Singh v. Karam. Singh (I) in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 Page of 88A.--[Ed.]of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase went.' That dictum was not necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that probably, at some future date, it will quite further consideration. The appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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