TMI Blog1928 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he district of Darbhanga, found himself considerably involved in debt in 1870; and his property was threatened with sale in execution of decrees against him. In order to pay off the debt, which amounted to over ₹ 41,000, he professed to transfer to his wife Anurgin Bahuasin the property in suit for a consideration of ₹ 41,532. The transaction between husband and wife is, in these proceedings, called a hiba-bil-ewaz, and the question for determination turns upon the construction of this document. 3. The debt for which the transfer was ostensibly executed was discharged with the money Durga Dutt Singh obtained under it. Their Lordships purposely use the word ostensibly in order to leave their decision until later in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur, making Durga Dutt Singh, their father, a defendant in the suit. Various allegations were put forward in the plaint; but the contention that the Bahuasin, the plaintiffs' mother, had not a transferable estate under the deed of gift of 1876, was not put forward, as it is now. The appellants did not proceed with the case; they applied to the Court for permission to withdraw it on certain grounds, to which their Lordships do not consider it necessary to refer. In spite of the objections of the defendant the Court allowed it to be withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit. This order is dated March 16, 1907. 8. The plaintiffs took no action in respect of the property or the transaction under which it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Dutt Singh made over possession of the property to his wife in pursuance of the hiba-bil-ewaz. 12. One point arose in the argument before the Subordinate Judge in connection with the transfer of 1876, which it is admitted had never been previously raised in any proceeding. It related, in fact, to the point which their Lordships have to decide now--namely, whether under the hiba-bil-ewaz the mother of the plaintiffs took an absolute title which entitled her to alienate the property conveyed to her. It was contended by the plaintiffs in the course of the argument that she had no right to mortgage the property in 1890. This view has been accepted by Das J., one of the learned judges before whom the appeal came for hearing after the remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls, sair, salt sairs, occupied and unoccupied houses of tenants, all zamindari rights, which I have in my possession up to this time, without participation of any one, to my wife Musammat Anuragin Bahuasin on receiving from her ₹ 41,532 as. 6 p. 8 k. 16 m. 16 in cash and having paid therewith the decretal amount due to the said decree-holder got the properties released from sale and put the said Musammat in possession of the gift properties. The said Musammat should have and hold possession of the gift properties and enjoy the produce thereof generation after generation, and I, the executant and my heirs and representatives neither have nor shall have any demand or dispute with respect to the gift properties or the consideration there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. Lord Buckmaster in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao L.R. 49 I.A. 129 broadly laid down the principle as follows: Their Lordships do not, therefore, propose to embark upon the consideration of what the effect of the deed of gift in favour of Thulja Boyee might be correctly determined to be, but as some misapprehension appears to exist as to the effect of certain decisions of the Board, and notably Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha, their Lordships think it desirable to remove this doubt, lest error should creep into the administration of the law in India with regard to the rights of a Hindu widow. In the case referred to, when originally heard before the High Court, it had been stated that under the Hindu law in the case of a gift of immo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|