TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, market dues rights upheld, lease valid, renewal invalid, deposit awarded.</h1> <h3>Smt. Dropadi Devi Versus Ram Das And Ors.</h3> Smt. Dropadi Devi Versus Ram Das And Ors. - AIR 1974 All 473 Issues Involved:1. Nature of the right to collect market dues (immovable property or not).2. Validity of the lease granted to Ram Das.3. Alleged renewal of the lease in favor of the defendant-appellant.4. Applicability of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.5. Entitlement to money deposited in court.Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Right to Collect Market Dues:The primary issue was whether the right to collect market dues constitutes immovable property. The court referenced Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, which includes 'benefits to arise out of land' in the definition of immovable property. The court concluded that the right to collect market dues is a benefit arising out of the land and thus is immovable property. This view was supported by precedents such as Sikandar v. Bahadur and Ram Jiawan v. Hanuman Pd., which held that such rights are immovable property and can be transferred by lease.2. Validity of the Lease Granted to Ram Das:The court examined the lease deed dated February 20, 1958, which was a registered document executed by both the Raja and Ram Das. It satisfied all the essential ingredients of a lease as defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court held that the transaction was a lease and not a licence, as it provided exclusive possession to Ram Das. Therefore, the unilateral revocation by the Raja on July 18, 1958, was invalid.3. Alleged Renewal of the Lease in Favor of the Defendant-Appellant:The defendant-appellant claimed that her lease was renewed in December 1957. However, the court found the documents supporting this claim to be fabricated and ante-dated. Even assuming the documents were genuine, the court noted that no registered instrument was executed to renew the lease, as required by Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consequently, the alleged renewal did not create a valid lease, and the defendant-appellant had no legal basis to remain in possession after September 30, 1958.4. Applicability of Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act:The defendant-appellant argued that the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act due to the non-registration of the partnership. The court found that at the time of the lease agreement with the Raja, Ram Das acted in his individual capacity and not as part of any partnership. Therefore, Section 69(2) did not apply, and Ram Das was entitled to enforce the contract and seek a decree in his favor.5. Entitlement to Money Deposited in Court:The court upheld the trial court's decree that the money deposited by the Receiver, collected from the market dues during the pendency of the suit, should be paid to Ram Das. Since the property was converted into money under interim court orders, Ram Das was entitled to this money in lieu of the property.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the trial court was affirmed. The court ruled that the right to collect market dues is immovable property, the lease in favor of Ram Das was valid, the alleged renewal of the defendant-appellant's lease was invalid, Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act did not bar the suit, and Ram Das was entitled to the money deposited in court. The stay order was discharged, and costs were awarded to the contesting respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
