Skip to content

Muneshar Lal and ors. Vs. Amar Nath Alias Chhotey Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924All493; 78Ind.Cas.626
AppellantMuneshar Lal and ors.
RespondentAmar Nath Alias Chhotey Lal
hindu law - joint family--alienation byfatlier--antecedent debt--immoral or illegal debt--burden of proof--alienation whether can be enforced against alienor's share. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......the benefit of it.'3. i would allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the learned subordinate judge. the appellant is entitled to his costs both in this court and in the court below. the cross-appeal is dismissed. let the hearing of the suit be expedited.ross, j.--i agree.

Daniels, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the property sold by their father Sham Lal, defendant No. 9, to Mst. Phul Kuwari in 1902 for a sum of Rs. 1,455. It is stated in the judgment of the trial Court that the vendee was the wife of Sham Lal's own cousin. The property was joint family property and the plaintiff's case was that the sale was executed without legal necessity. The sale was the subject of a pre-emption suit and the defendantsiare transferees from the successful pre-emptor. The pre-emption suit was decreed on payment of the full sale price. The sale in dispute was for cash paid in presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the deed to the extent of Rs. 1,301. The remainder of the consideration was left with the vendee for payment of three prior debts,


1. A mortgage-debt due to Raghubar

Dayal 20

2. Another Mortgage 20

3. To pay off a pro-note due to Ganga

Parsad 109

2. The trial Court found that legal neoessity was established to the extent of Rs. 109 only and decreed the suit for possession subject to payment of this amount. The defendants 1 to 8 appealed and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections objecting to the order directing and will even assist him in asserting that right and having the benefit of it.'

3. I would allow the appeal, and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appellant is entitled to his costs both in this Court and in the Court below. The cross-appeal is dismissed. Let the hearing of the suit be expedited.

Ross, J.--I agree.

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