Ram Chander Darak vs Ganeshdas Rathi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1983 Supreme(SC) 233

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.
Ram Chander Darak, Appellant
Versus
Ganeshdas Rathi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2110 of 1970
Decided on 23-8-1983.
Mr. U. R. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocate with him, for Appellant : Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Markendeya, Advocate with him, for Respondents.
* C.C.C.A. No. 19 of 1963, D/- 17-4-1970, (A. P.)

Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, S.Markandaya, S.T.DESAI, U.R.Lalit

Headnote:
Property acquired - Apportionment of compensation - Appellant claimed apportionment of compensation in respect of property acquired, in his capacity as reversioner of last male owner, on ground that the alienation made by widow of deceased being by a limited owner, having a widows interest in property the alienation is not binding on reversioner - It is conceded that widow is alive - In her life-time appellant as reversioner cannot claim any title in praesenti to property which was subject-matter of acquisition and consequently he is not entitled to receive compensation in lifetime – Held, He could not have therefore asked for apportionment of compensation in his favour - He is not entitled to compensation even if alienation is valid or invalid in lifetime of widow - Therefore he had no right to claim compensation in lifetime - Accordingly, on this short ground - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

It appears that the appellant claimed apportionment of compensation in respect of property acquired, in his capacity as the reversioner of the last male owner Jainarayan, on the ground that the alienation made by Mohana Bai widow of deceased Jainarayan being by a limited owner, having a widows interest in the property the alienation is not binding on the reversioner. It is conceded that widow Mohana Bai is alive. In her life-time appellant as reversioner cannot claim any title in praesenti to the property which was the subject-matter of acquisition and consequently he is not entitled to receive compensation in the lifetime of Mohana Bai. He could not have therefore asked for apportionment of compensation in his favour. He is not entitled to compensation even if the alienation is valid or invalid in the lifetime of widow Mohana Bai. Therefore he had no right to claim compensation in the lifetime of Mohana Bai. Accordingly, on this short ground, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation: AIR 1984 SC 42

Click Here to Read the rest of this document