SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(All) 107

MITHAN LAL, R.S.PATHAK
Hamid Husain – Appellant
Versus
Ram Naresh Mallah – Respondent


Advocates:
G. P. Bhargava and N. D. Ojha, for Appellant; K. D. Pandey, for Respondent.

Judgement

MITHAN LAL, J. : The following question has been referred by a learned single Judge to a Division Bench.

"Whether a mortgagee under a void mortgage of an occupancy holding acquires the status of an asami under the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act."

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff respondent Tulsi Mallah executed a mortagage of his occupancy holding in favour of the predecessor in interest of the defendant appellant on 14th May, 1913, for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. The present suit was instituted in the civil court for possession of the disputed property on payment of mortgage money. The defence was that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court and that the defendant had become Asami and the only proper remedy for the plaintiff was to institute a suit under Section 202 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as the Act).

3. Both the Courts below have overruled the defence and have decreed the suit on payment of Rs. 500/- holding that the defendants had not become Asamis and were mere licencees. When the matter came before a learned single Judge of this Court he f







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top