1931 (9) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion of the house at the date of the suit. 2. The house belonged to one Valibai who was the absolute owner of it. She died in September 1919, and defendant No. 1, her daughter, was her only heir. It see ma that the house was kept in the possession of defendant No. 2 who was related to the deceased Valibai, as defendant No. 1 resided at Barhanpur. 3. Defendant No. 1 entered into a contract to sel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the house in suit alleging that both the plaintiff and Vallabhdas had notice of the improvements. 5. Defendant No. 2 failed on the contentions as to the oral will and the kararnamas, and the learned Counsel for defendant No. 2 very properly raised no contentions on the points of fact but raised two points of law. The first point taken by him was that the plaintiff after all was a benamidar for Va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he decision of the Privy Council refers to an earlier decision of Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, and the principle of law stated by their Lordships is to the following effect (p. 575):- The bulk of judicial opinion is in favour of the proposition that in a proceeding by or against the benamidar, the person beneficially entitled is fully affected by the rules of res judicata. 6. The princi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant No. 2 had spent Rs. 1,000 on improvements, that amount should at any rate be allowed. Reference was made to Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. But it is clear from Section 51 that such a claim can only be made by a transferee who makes improvements believing in good faith that he was absolutely entitled to the property. The word " transfer" is defined in the Act itself in Se....