Hawal Rai vs Har Prasad - 1923 Supreme(All) 621

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1923 Supreme(All) 621

GRIMWOOD MEARS, PIGGOTT
Hawal Rai – Appellant
Versus
Har Prasad – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J. - One Ram Naresh was the occupancy tenant of a certain holding. He mortgaged the same with possession to one Dukhit Misir, at a time when such mortgages were not forbidden by law. Dukhit accordingly entered into possession of the holding lawfully with the status of a mortgagee. Earn Naresh died in the year 1913. Dukhit remained for a time in possession as a ,tenant-at-will. His rights as mortgagee had been determined because Ram Naresh had left no heir entitled to succeed to, the tenancy. Dukhit has let into possession Har Prasad Rai and others, who are co-sharers in the village, and we may take it as-found that he has let them into possession in return for a money payment made in recognition of his rights as mortgagee. The plaintiffs, came into court alleging that they were the sole proprietors of the land which formed the occupancy holding of Ram Naresh. They claimed that Dukhit was their tenant-at-will, and that they were entitled to eject him under the ordinary procedure prescribed by the Local Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901. Along with Dukhit they claimed to eject Har Prasad Rai and others who have been described as persons let into po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document