LexRAJA KAMAKSHYA NARAYAN SINGH BAHADUR versus CHOHAN RAM AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
108 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953) ' · 1952 where death is accidental and the accused has acted P 1 .-a- K in a peculiar manner regarding the disposal of the "·""' ;' aur dead body for reasons best known to himself. One of ThcSt~te of them ·might well be that he was afraid of a false case Punjab. being started against him. Life and liberty of persons cannot be put in jeopardy on mere suspicions, howso· Maha.ian •7· ever strong, and they can only be deprived of these on the basis of definite proof. In this case, as found by the High Court, not only were the Sub-Inspector of police and police constables and other witnesses guilty of telling deliberate lies but the prosecution was blameworthy in introducing witnesse> in the case to support their lies and that being so, we feel that it woulxl be unsafe to convict the appellant on the material that is left after eliminating the perjured, false and inadmissible evidence. 1952 Oct. 29. For the reasons given above we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant under sec- tion '201, Indian Penal Code, and acquit her of that charge also. Appeal allowed .. Agent for the appellant: Sardar Bahadur. Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. Agent for the caveator: Harbans Singh. RAJA KAMAKSHYA NARAYAN SINGH BAHADUR v. CHOHAN RAM AND ANOTHER [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.] Tran.<fer of Property Act (IV of 1882), ss. 66, 65-A-Mortgage -Mortgagor in possession-Power to lease-Law before amendment Act of 1929-Permanent lease by mortgagor-Validity. Under the hiw as it stood prior to the enactment of s. 65-A of the Transfer of Property Act, by Act XX of 1929, the question whether the mortgagor in possession had power to lease the mort- ~·~ed property has got to be determined with reference to the S.C:R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 109 authority of the mortgagor as the bailiff or agent of the mortgagee 1952 to deal. with the property in the usual course of management. It has to be determined on general 'principles and not on the distinc- Raja tion between an English mortgage and a simple mortgage or,pn the Kamakshya considerations germane to s. 66 of the Transfer of Property Act, Narayan Singh and the true position is that the mortga.gor in possession may make Bnhadur a lease conformable to usage in the ordinary course of manage- ' v. ment; for instance, he may create a tenancy from year to year Ohohan Ram in the case of agricultural lands or from month to month in the mid Anothsr. case of houses. But it is not competent to him to grant a lease on unusual terms or to alter the character of the land or to autho- rise its use in a manner, or for a purpose, different from the mode in which he himself had used it before he granted the mortgage. And it is for the lessee, if he wants to resist the claim of the mortgagee, to establish that the lease in his favour was granted on the usual terms in the ordinary course of management. , Where a mortgagor granted a permanent lease of the mort- gaged property in the year 1925 and the High Court upheld the lease as against a person who had purchased the properties in a sale held in execution of a decree obtained by the mortgagee on the mor£ga.ge, on the ground that the lease did not impair the security of the mortgagee: Held, that the lea.se was not binding on the mortgagee or the auction purchaser as it was not a lease granted in the usual course of management, even though it did not impair the security. Madan "Mohan Singh v. Ra.j Ki shore Kumari (1916) 21 C.W.N. 88, approved. Balmuk1tnd v. Molila.l (1915) 20 C.W.N. 350, dis- sented from. Banee Prasad v. Reet Bhuninn Singh (1868) 10 W.R. 325, explained. · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal .N"o. 73 of 1950. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 26th January, 1944, of the High Court of Judicature. at Patna (Faz! Ali C. J. and Chatterji J.) in Appeal from Original D~cree No. 4 of 1941, arising out of Judgment and Decree dated the 20th September, 1940, of the Court of the Addi- tional Subordina~ Judge of Ha7.aribagh in 'Title Suit No. 45 of 1939. S. N. Mukherjee for the appellant. Ganga.charan Mitkherjee and A. N. Sinha for the respondents. 1951 October 23. rrhe judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. 15 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 BHAGWATI J. --The question that arises for onr R . consideration in this appeal is whether prior to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.