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>Privy Council Reverses High Court Decree on Alienations</h1> <h3>Ch. Gur Narayan And Others Versus Sheolal</h3> The Privy Council reversed the High Court's decree in suit No. 99, finding the alienations by Maha Sundar invalid due to lack of legal necessity. Mohesh ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of alienations made by Maha Sundar.2. Right of Mohesh Lal to maintain the action.3. Estoppel against the plaintiffs regarding the sale of the village of Amhara.4. Legal necessity for the sale of properties in suit No. 101.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Alienations Made by Maha Sundar:The plaintiffs claimed title under assignments from the reversioners, arguing that the alienations by Maha Sundar were invalid as they were not made for purposes binding on the reversioners. The High Court found that the alienations were entered into for justifiable necessity, but the Privy Council disagreed, particularly regarding the village of Amhara. The Privy Council concluded that the plaintiffs were not estopped from questioning the sale as the transaction did not meet the requirements of legal necessity.2. Right of Mohesh Lal to Maintain the Action:The defendants contended that Mohesh Lal was only a benamidar for Rafiuddin and thus had no right to maintain the action. The High Court dismissed Mohesh Lal's claim on these grounds. However, the Privy Council held that the decree dismissing his claim was unsustainable, as the benami system is a common practice in India, and there was no evidence that Rafiuddin put forward a claim adversely to Mohesh Lal. The Privy Council emphasized that a benamidar, despite having no beneficial interest, can maintain an action in respect of the property.3. Estoppel Against the Plaintiffs Regarding the Sale of the Village of Amhara:The High Court held that the plaintiffs were estopped from questioning the sale by Maha Sundar, as Hanuman Sahay was a party to the transaction. The Privy Council disagreed, noting that Hanuman had no assignable interest at the time of the sale and his involvement was merely precautionary. They found no evidence that the vendee altered his position based on Hanuman's representation. The Privy Council concluded that there was no estoppel, and Hanuman's subsequent purchase from the reversioners did not benefit Maha Sundar's vendees.4. Legal Necessity for the Sale of Properties in Suit No. 101:The High Court found that part of the consideration for the sale was applied in payment of debts due from the estate, thus establishing legal necessity. The Privy Council agreed with this finding. Consequently, the claim of plaintiff No. 3 in suit No. 101 was dismissed, and a decree was made in favor of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 for half of the property, conditioned on their payment of 7,500 rupees with interest.Conclusion:In suit No. 99 of 1906, the Privy Council reversed the High Court's decree and restored the Subordinate Judge's decree. In suit No. 101 of 1906, the decree of the High Court was varied to include the name of Mohesh Lal, granting the plaintiffs full extent of the properties claimed, subject to the specified payment. The appellants were awarded costs for the appeal and the High Court proceedings in suit No. 99, and costs as decreed by the High Court in suit No. 101. The Privy Council's advice to His Majesty was to order accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
