9911796707
TMI Blog1946 (1) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled by the Hindu public against Ramdayal, under s. 92, Civil P.C. a compromise was made whereby the charge of Rs. 10,000 due to Ramdayal was declared. A scheme was framed and a committee of management, including himself as a secretary, was appointed. On 21st June 1920, the president of this committee, Lala Fateh Chand, made a possessory mortgage in favour of Ramdayal for Rs. 10,000 in respect of the two houses. Ramdayal in his turn sold his mortgagee rights to Ram Adhin who put them to sale and purchased the same in execution of a decree. Ram Adhin sold his mortgagee rights on 20th March 1939, to Hazari Lal and Mathura Prasad. They in their turn sold the same on 5th March 1938, to the plaintiff Hansraj. Ramdayal and after him his two sons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irayanama, Ex. 3, dated 12th January 1939. The defendants' counsel, however, based his liability to pay rent to the Dharmada committee on Ex. 3 and denied that there was any oral agreement to pay the rent month by month. He added : My clients do not claim any other rights in the house in suit except those of a tenant under Ex. 3 so far as this case is concerned. 3. The trial Court found that Ex. 3, being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence. Lala Fateh Chand, P. W. 1, the President of the Dharmada Committee, stated that the defendants were asked to execute the kirayanama several times but they put off the matter. Ultimately in December 1938, he asked the defendants to execute kirayanama failing which a suit will be filed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unregistered body, to bring a suit for ejectment. Accepting the position that the plaintiff was a benamidar there can be no doubt that he was entitled to maintain the suit. In ('18) 5 A.I.R. 1918 P. 0. 140 : 46 I. A. 1 : 46 Cal. 566 : 49 I.C. 1 (P. C), Gur Narayan v. Sheolal Singh at p. 574 their Lordships of the Judicial Committee remarked : As already observed, the benamidar has no beneficial interest in the property or business that stands in his name; he represents, in fact, the real owner, and so far as their relative legal position is concerned he is a mere trustee for him. Their Lordships find it difficult to understand why in such circumstances, an action cannot be maintained in the name of the benamider in respect of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
