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>Appeals Dismissed: No Gift of Village Khagsiamau, Mortgage Redemption Deeds Void Due to Exceeded Authority</h1> <h3>Gajendra Shah and Ors. Versus Shankar Bux Singh and Ors.</h3> The court dismissed the appeals with costs, upholding the trial judge's findings on both issues. It concluded that village Khagsiamau was not gifted to ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the gift of village Khagsiamau to defendants 1 and 2.2. Validity of the redemption of the possessory mortgages by defendants 1 and 3.Issue 1: Validity of the Gift of Village KhagsiamauThe first point for determination was whether village Khagsiamau was orally gifted by Thakurain Raj Kuar to defendants 1 and 2 at the time of the marriage of her daughter Thakurain Brijraj Kuar with Thakur Gajendra Shah on 27th April 1926. After examining the evidence, the court concluded that village Khagsiamau was never gifted to Thakur Gajendra Shah and his wife by way of shankalap at the time of the kanyadan ceremony. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to discuss whether Thakurain Raj Kuar had the legal right to gift the village under the terms of the deed of family settlement or under Hindu law. The court agreed with the trial judge that village Khagsiamau was not gifted to the defendants, and therefore, the appeal of Thakur Gajendra Shah and Thakurain Brijraj Kuar failed in respect of village Khagsiamau.Issue 2: Validity of the Redemption of the Possessory MortgagesThe second issue involved the validity of the redemption of the possessory mortgages by defendant 1 and defendant 3. The plaintiff argued that the deeds executed by Thakurain Raj Kuar were in contravention of the conditions laid down in paragraph 8 of the deed of family settlement and were therefore void and not binding upon him. The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to prove the particulars of the alleged fraud, as the transactions themselves furnished internal proof of a design to circumvent the provisions of the family settlement and deprive the plaintiff of the mortgaged villages.The court rejected the appellants' argument that redemption of the mortgages does not constitute a transfer of mortgagee rights, emphasizing that Thakurain Raj Kuar violated the terms of the family settlement by not filing a regular suit for realizing the full amount due under the mortgages. Instead, she allowed her son-in-law to redeem the mortgages for a significantly lower amount. The court found that this transaction was not a legitimate business deal and that Thakurain Raj Kuar did not realize the full amount due under the mortgage deeds to the Halwapur estate.The court also addressed the argument that the trial judge based his conclusions on mere suspicions. It clarified that the primary concern was whether Thakurain Raj Kuar had the right to reconvey her mortgagee rights under the family settlement, not the genuineness of the transactions. The court found that Thakurain Raj Kuar exceeded her powers under the family settlement by executing the deeds of reconveyance in favor of her son-in-law and defendant 3, making these deeds void and not binding upon the plaintiff.Conclusion:The appeals were dismissed with costs, as the court upheld the findings of the trial judge on both issues. The court excluded the account books filed by the plaintiff from consideration, as they were not duly proved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
