LexCHHOTE KHAN DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS SON, HARMAT, AND OTHERS versus MAL KHAN AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad.
M<MChand
Mah<ijan C. J,
1954
April.,,
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
of alienation need be given ; it is enough if words are
used of such amplitude as would convey full rights of
·ownership." The learned Judges of the High Court
were therefore clearly wrong in law in holding that the
will having been made by the father in favour of his
daughter, it should be presumed that he intended to .
give her a limited life estate.
For. the reasons given above we allow the appeal, set
aside the decree of the High Court decreeing the plaint-
iff's suit and restore the decree of the trial Court dis-
missing· the plaintiff's suit. In
the
circumstances
of
this case we will make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
CHHOTE KHAN,. DECEASED, REPRESENTED
... BY HIS SON, HARMAT, AND OTHERS
v.
MAL KHAN AND OTHERS.
[Suom
RANJAN
DAs, . GHULAM
HASAN
and
·-,.
B. JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Wajih-Ul..arz-Entry
r"egarding
agreement
therein-Whether
holds good .after the expiry of period of Settlement.
'
•
Held, that an entry regafding agrccinent in a Wajib-ul-arz holds
.-.
good during the currency of the Settlement and dOcs not survive
the expiry of the period of Settlement.
Hira and Others v. Muhamadi and Others (16 P.R. · 1915
at
p. 89), Allah Bakhsh
and
Others v. Mirza Bashir·ud-Din and
Others (1932 L.T.R. 56) and Lieut. Chaudhri Chattar Singh v. Mt . • · -4
Shugni and Another (A.LR. 1941 L.ah. 239) referred to.
'>
. CmL
APPELLATE
JUR1sDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 61 of 1951.
Appeal from the -Judgment and Decree· dated the
10th November; 1944, of the High Court of Judicature
at Lahore in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 259 of
1942, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated
the 29th July;
1942, of the Court of the Extra Assist-
:~
ant Settlement Officer and · Assistant Collector · of · the
'
.
{
" -
. S.C.R.
\
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
61
First Grade as Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon, in Suit No.
35 of 1940-41.
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Ram Nath
Chadha and
Ganpat Rai, with him) for the appellants.
Naunit Lal for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 7 to 11 and
13 to 19.
'y,
1954. April 21. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
GttULAM HASAN J.-This appeal is brought ·against
the judgment and decree dated November 10, 1944, of
the Lahore High Court (Sir Trevor Harries C. J. and
Mr. Justice Mahajan, the present Chief Justice of this
Court) reversing the judgment and decree of the Assist-
ant Collector, First Grade, Gurgaon, as
Senior Sub-
.,). ordinate Judge, and dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants'
suit.
Dalmir, Dilmor ·and Chhinga were three brothers
and Amir Khan and Sharif Khan were the two colla-
terals. Alif Khan was the son of Amir Khan. The
present dispute is between the descendants of the five
branches of the family .
../
The suit was brought by the descendants of Dalmir
against the descendants of Dilmor, Chhinga, Ali£ Khan
and Sharif Khan. To this suit were also impleaded as
defendants some
of the descendants of Dalmir. The
plaintiffs claimed a declaration that they along with
defendants Nos. 17 to 19 are full owners in possession
of 819 Bighas 19 Biswas land situate in village . Manota
Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka in the Gurgaon District, that
the defendants Nos. 1 to 16 had no right to claim
;. partition of that land and that they were entitled only
to the produce of land measuring 140 Bighas 19 Biswas
possessed by them
without payment of land revenue.
The aforesaid defendants, it was alleged, were bound
by the terms embodied in the agreement dated Septem-
ber 11, 1861, in the Wajib-ul-arz of that Settlement and
repeated
in subsequent
Settlements which
debarred
them from any right to claim partition. Defendants
\.Nos. 1 to 16, who are the contesting defendants, pleaded
· in defence that the plaintiffs along with the pro-forma
defendants Nos. 17 to 19 were recorded in revenue
1954
ChhoteKhan
v.
Ma/Khan and
Others.
Ghulam Hasan],
·1954
·Chhott Khan
·v .
. Mal.Khan and
·Others.
Ghulam Hasan J.
62
• $TJPREME :COURT .REPORTS
r.[1955] . !
·papers as owners· of l/~th •share in the land,· in• dispute,
while
the
contesting
defendants were .• rerordi:d ' as
owners of the remaining 4/~th. share 1 and as such they
were entitled to . claim .. partition. The .defendants denied
that any agreement or
condition in the Wajib-ul-arz
restricting their right to partition was binding after the
expiry of the term Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.