LAW FOR ALL
advocatemmmohan@gmail.com .
LawforAll
(Move to ...)
Home
▼
Showing posts with label
mortgage etc.
.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
mortgage etc.
.
Show all posts
Monday, May 6, 2013
Panch Faisla. interpretation which contains a rider on the property not to alienate, mortgage etc., = "The house No. 512 is in Kotwali ward. Part of which shown in yellow colour on the eastern side is assigned to Phoolchand and the western part thereof shown in green colour is assigned to Dulichand. However, in view of the fact that financial condition of Phoolchand is very weak and he has a large family he can retain the portion of Dulichand also on a condition that neither he nor his descendants would be entitled to alienate the same by sale, gift, etc. and if they violate the same it would be open for Dulichand or his descendants to get the possession of their portion. Secondly for the portion assigned to Dulichand in case Phoolchand pays a sum of rupees eight thousand to Shyama Bai, he would be entitled to retain the same and subsequent thereto Phoolchand would not have any right on this part." In fact Phoolchand had purchased the said limited rights on paying the family debt to Shyama Bai.- It has been admitted by the respondents/defendants in the plaint itself that an amount of rupees eight thousand had been paid by the appellants to Shyama Bai. Therefore, in view of the above, Phoolchand could have been permitted to retain the said portion of Dulichand's share, as he had fulfilled the condition stipulated therein. Giving literal effect to the last sentence that on making the payment of rupees eight thousand to Shyama Bai, the rights of Phoolchand would be extinguished, leads to absurdity. In fact, Phoolchand had purchased the share of Dulichand with a further rider, that neither he nor his descendants would be able to alienate the suit property in future. Under no circumstance, could phoolchand be asked to make the payment of debt to Shyama Bai and get nothing in lieu thereof. In fact the said amount of rupees eight thousand was paid by Phoolchand in 1960, when money had a substantial value and a person could purchase immovable property for such a handsome amount. 10. In order to do complete justice between the parties, in the facts of this case, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside.
›
' ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 2435 OF 2005 RAJES...
›
Home
View web version