RAJ KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH versus RAM PARTAP PANDEY & ORS.

RAJ KISHORE PRASAD NARAIN SINGH versus RAM PARTAP PANDEY & ORS.

The Act gives jurisdiction to authorities only over properties vested in the State; the mortgagee is not barred from enforcing claims under ordinary law in respect of properties not so vested. Filing of a claim under s. 14 of the Act does not constitute a final election of remedy barring recourse to ordinary law for non-vested properties. Withdrawal of the claim is permissible as requested by the appellant, without prejudice to the respondents.

Parties
Appellant: Raj Kishore Prasad Narain Singh; Respondents: Ram Pratap Pandey & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 November 1966
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Order of Single Judge (board) of Patna High Court Under S. 18(1) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in Claim Appeal No. 22 of 1956
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Usufructuary Mortgage, Election of Remedies, Jurisdiction Under Land Reforms Acts, Withdrawal of Proceedings
Property Law Land Reforms Usufructuary Mortgage Election of Remedies Jurisdiction Under Land Reforms Acts Withdrawal of Proceedings

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Kishore Prasad Narain Singh

Appellant

Ram Pratap Pandey & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Order of Single Judge (board) of Patna High Court Under S. 18(1) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in Claim Appeal No. 22 of 1956

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the remedy under s. 14 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act amounts to a final election of remedies for the mortgagee, preventing recourse to ordinary law in respect of non-vested properties
  2. 2 Whether the authorities under the Act have jurisdiction concerning properties not vested in the State
  3. 3 Whether withdrawal of a claim at appellate stage can be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The Act gives jurisdiction to authorities only over properties vested in the State; the mortgagee is not barred from enforcing claims under ordinary law in respect of properties not so vested. Filing of a claim under s. 14 of the Act does not constitute a final election of remedy barring recourse to ordinary law for non-vested properties. Withdrawal of the claim is permissible as requested by the appellant, without prejudice to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission granted to appellant to withdraw Claim Case No. 14 of 1956 before Claims Officer, Gaya per his application dated November 9, 1959.
  • No opinion expressed on findings of Claims Officer or learned Judge; parties to bear their own costs.