9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against a decree for possession of certain lands - Validity of a mortgage made by a Hindu widow - Effect of a decree obtained by presumptive reversioner - Applicability of Agra Tenancy Act to a grove Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal against a decree affirming possession of certain lands by the respondents against the appellant. The lands included a share in a mauza and a grove. The appellant appealed the decree. 2. The main issue revolved around the validity of a mortgage made by a Hindu widow, Oudha Koer, in favor of Kishan Prasad. The mortgage was for legal necessity and was claimed to bind the estate of Manohar Ojha, the original owner of the properties in question. 3. The Subordinate Judge initially found in favor of the respondents, the reversionary heirs of Manohar Ojha. The High Court based its decision against the appellant on a decree obtained by presumptive reversioner Dhanai Ojha, challenging the alienation made by the widow. 4. The decree obtained by Dhanai Ojha was crucial in determining the rights of the parties. It declared that the transfer to Kishan Prasad was not binding on the estate after the widow's death, granting possession to the reversionary heirs. 5. The judgment relied on previous cases to establish the rights of reversionary heirs to protect the estate from waste or danger during the widow's possession. The decree obtained by Dhanai Ojha was deemed binding on the appellant, upholding the rights of the respondents as the heirs of Manohar Ojha. 6. The judgment emphasized the salutary application of the principle to prevent re-litigation of settled issues and to ensure the preservation of the estate for the ultimate reversioners. 7. Regarding the grove in question, the appellant wrongfully took possession after the widow's death. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the Agra Tenancy Act's limitation period applied, ruling that the Act did not cover the type of property in question. 8. Ultimately, the Privy Council dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and ordering the appellant to bear the costs.
|
