Skip to content


Gaya Prasad and anr. Vs. Methai Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in75Ind.Cas.624
AppellantGaya Prasad and anr.
RespondentMethai Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
.....aihc 3628 overruled]. - the defence raised to the claim was (1) that no suit having been brought against the decree-holder within a year, the title of the plaintiff had become extinguished, and (2) that the plaintiff could not get possession without paying off the decree of amrit lal which had been satisfied by the defendants. the trial court decreed the claim for possession conditional on the plaintiffs' paying up the amount of the decree of amrit lal which had been satisfied by the defendants......become extinguished, and (2) that the plaintiff could not get possession without paying off the decree of amrit lal which had been satisfied by the defendants. the trial court decreed the claim for possession conditional on the plaintiffs' paying up the amount of the decree of amrit lal which had been satisfied by the defendants. on appeal by the plaintiff, the learned judge of the lower appellate court has modified the decree of the trial court by deleting the condition regarding the payment of amrit lal's decree by the plaintiff and has given an unconditional decree to the plaintiff. the defendants come here in second appeal. i do not see any principle of law by which the defendants who had, according to the defence, purchased the property from a person who had no title to sell it,.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. The facts are as follows:

Ode Beni owned two houses. He died leaving a widow, Ram Dei, the stepmother of his son Mata Ghulam, who survived him. After the death of Mata Ghulam. Sheo Pal, his uncle, is said to have get the property as his heir. on the 6th of July 1918 Sheo Pal sold the two houses to the plaintiff. One Amrit Lal obtained a money-decree from the Court of Small Causes against Sheo Pal and Ram Dei. The amount of this decree was recoverable from the assets of Beni. In execution of this decree he attached the houses purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff objected but his objections were disallowed on the 9th of August 1919. On the 24th of November 1919 Musammat Ram Dei sold the bouses to Gaya Prasad and Sattidin who paid off the amount of the decree. On the 9th of August 1920, that is, within a year from the date of the disallowance of his objection, the plaintiff brought the present suit for possession against Gaya Prasad and Sattidin, the purchasers. The defence raised to the claim was (1) that no suit having been brought against the decree-holder within a year, the title of the plaintiff had become extinguished, and (2) that the plaintiff could not get possession without paying off the decree of Amrit Lal which had been satisfied by the defendants. The Trial Court decreed the claim for possession conditional on the plaintiffs' paying up the amount of the decree of Amrit Lal which had been satisfied by the defendants. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has modified the decree of the Trial Court by deleting the condition regarding the payment of Amrit Lal's decree by the plaintiff and has given an unconditional decree to the plaintiff. The defendants come here in second appeal. I do not see any principle of law by which the defendants who had, according to the defence, purchased the property from a person who had no title to sell it, could expect to be recouped for the amount which they paid to clear off the decree of Amrit Lal. Because of their purchase they did not acquire any interest in the property and as such their action was that of mere volunteers. The decree of the Court below is a right decree and is not open to any objection. I confirm it and dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court-fees on the higher scale.


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