ASA RAM AND ANOTHER versus MST. RAM KALI AND ANOTHER

ASA RAM AND ANOTHER versus MST. RAM KALI AND ANOTHER

A lease created by the mortgagees in favour of the respondents was not of a prudent or bona fide character and did not meet the conditions of s. 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, it is not binding on the mortgagors, and the respondents could not acquire hereditary tenancy rights under s. 29(a) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, as they were never lawfully admitted as tenants by someone with the authority to do so.

Parties
Appellant: Asa Ram and Another; Respondent: Mst. Ram Kali and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 November 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated February 4, 1954, of the U.p. Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 96 of 1948 49
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Usufructuary Mortgage, Binding Nature of Mortgagee's Lease, Hereditary Tenancy, Rights of Mortgagor and Mortgagee, Prudent Management Under S. 76(a) Transfer of Property Act
Property Law Tenancy Law Usufructuary Mortgage Binding Nature of Mortgagee's Lease Hereditary Tenancy Rights of Mortgagor and Mortgagee Prudent Management Under S. 76(a) Transfer of Property Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asa Ram and Another

Appellant

Mst. Ram Kali and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated February 4, 1954, of the U.p. Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 96 of 1948 49

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lease created by a mortgagee is binding on the mortgagor after redemption under s. 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acquired hereditary tenancy rights under s. 29(a) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.

Ratio Decidendi

A lease created by the mortgagees in favour of the respondents was not of a prudent or bona fide character and did not meet the conditions of s. 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, it is not binding on the mortgagors, and the respondents could not acquire hereditary tenancy rights under s. 29(a) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, as they were never lawfully admitted as tenants by someone with the authority to do so.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decree of the Board of Revenue set aside.
  • Decree of the Revenue Officer, Meerut (affirmed by the Commissioner), restored.