Skip to content


Kandhiya and anr. Vs. Musammat Raj Rup Kunwar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in75Ind.Cas.681
AppellantKandhiya and anr.
RespondentMusammat Raj Rup Kunwar
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), sections 57, 63 - hindu widow's estate, what is--widow, alienation by--suit by reversionary for ejectment, whether maintainable. - 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]......arises are as follows: a certain lady, called aswamedh kuer, had what appears to have been a hindu widow's estate in a certain village. she gave perpetual lease of certain plots to one gopal. under this perpetual lease gopal had power to transfer his rights. the plots were agricultural land. after the lady's death gopal transferred these plots to kandhaiya and gawal, defendants-appellants. the lady was succeeded by the present plaintiff-respondent, musammat raj rup kunwar.2. the defendants-appellants constructed a house upon these plots and planted, trees. the plaintiff-respondent sued to eject them under sections 57, 63(b). the assistant collector permitted the ejectment subject to a proviso that if the defendants paid rs. 50 compensation and removed the house and trees they should be.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. The facts of the suit out of which this appeal arises are as follows: A certain lady, called Aswamedh Kuer, had what appears to have been a Hindu widow's estate in a certain village. She gave perpetual lease of certain plots to one Gopal. Under this perpetual lease Gopal had power to transfer his rights. The plots were agricultural land. After the lady's death Gopal transferred these plots to Kandhaiya and Gawal, defendants-appellants. The lady was succeeded by the present plaintiff-respondent, Musammat Raj Rup Kunwar.

2. The defendants-appellants constructed a house upon these plots and planted, trees. The plaintiff-respondent sued to eject them under Sections 57, 63(b). The Assistant Collector permitted the ejectment subject to a proviso that if the defendants paid Rs. 50 compensation and removed the house and trees they should be pemitted to retain possession. The learned District Judge in appeal set aside the latter portion of the order and decreed unconditional ejectment. The defendants appeal here.

3. The plea taken on their behalf must, I think, succeed. The suit, as brought, was premature. There is nothing to slow that the lady who granted the permanent lease had an estate other than a Hindu widow's estate in the property in question.' It appears to have been found, by the learned District Judge that she had such widow's estate. Now that estate is not a life-estate, and it is not an estate held in trust for reversioners. She represented the estate and had power to make alienations subject to the right of the reversioners to have those alienations set saside if they were found to be either not for legal necessity or not for the benefit of the estate, but until such alienations are set aside they do not cease to be operative. The defendants-appellants are in the same position as Gopal end it was necessary for the plaintiff-respondent to set aside the alienation which the lady had made in favour of Gopal as precedent to instituting a suit for the ejectment of the defendants-appellants through the Revenue Courts. I, therefore, allow this appeal and direct that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent will pay his own costs and those of the defendants appellants in all Courts. These costs will include in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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