Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 161
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Findlay
GHULBA AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
MAROTI AND ORS – Respondent
Decided on : 17-08-1927
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the C.P. Tenancy Act 1920 and the interpretation of previous decisions in similar cases.
Headnote:
Interference - Transfer of Interest - C.P. Tenancy Act 1920
Fact of the Case:
The court found no reason for interference in a case involving the transfer of interest under the C.P. Tenancy Act 1920. The appellant's attempt to distinguish the case from previous decisions was deemed inapposite.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason for interference and dismissed the appeal without notice to the respondents, fully agreeing with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.
Issues: The issue revolved around the transfer of interest during the lifetime of defendant 4 under the C.P. Tenancy Act 1920.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referenced previous decisions and the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the C.P. Tenancy Act 1920 to support its finding of no reason for interference.
Final Decision: The appeal failed and was dismissed without notice to the respondents.
Findlay—I have heard the pleader for the appellants in this case but can see no reason for interference. The distinction which he has attempted to draw between the decision in Bikram v. Thakur Ganesh Singh, 1927 AIR(Nag) 129, where a surrender was concerned, and the present case, where a transfer is concerned, seems to me utterly-inapposite in view of the reasoning in paras. 7 to 12 of the decision just quoted. We are not here concerned with the devolution of the interest of an absolute occupancy tenant after his death, but with the transfer made during the lifetime of defendant 4. As has been shown in para. 6 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, Mt Bindi did all that was required of her under Sections 5 and 6. C.P. Tenancy Act 1920, before making the transfer in question. Decisions like those in Vithu v. Mt. Mendri,1909 5 NLR 172, and Bhura v. Ramrao, 1912 17 IndCas 366 have been sufficiently dealt with by Hallifax, A J.C., in his comments on ratio decidendi in Vasudeo v. Bhiwa A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 306. As at present advised, I can see no reason for differing from the view taken by Hallifax, A.J.C., in the last case quoted and I find myself in full agreement with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.
2. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed without notice to the respondents.
Final Result : Dismissed
