High Courts(1921) 05 PAT CK 0016

Bhikhamber Singh vs Bhajo Hari Marwari

Patna High Court · Decided on 4 May 1921

CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1920

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 289 words

Jwala Prasad, J.—The judgment-debtor is the appellant. His application in the Court below, objecting to the sale of the property in question in execution of the money-decree obtained by the decree-holder, has been dismissed. The ground of objection was that the property in question being a ghatwali or Police jagir was not saleable. The property in question appertains to the Zamindary of Pachite, and on a review of the authorities on the subject it was held in this Court in the case of Jadab Lal v. Sri Sri Debi Lal Singh 42 Ind. Cas. 399 : 2 P.L.J. 725 : 3 P.L.W. 148 : (1919) Pat. 426 that jagirs of Pachite are transferable. The only restriction attaching to the salability of the tenure is the right of Government to prevent the sale on the ground that the jagirdar or ghatwal is liable to Government to render Police and public duties. The Government does not seem to interest itself in this litigation and the restriction, if any, was expressly removed by the Government in 1881. It is needless to pursue the subject any farther. The view taken by the Court below appears to be correct. Besides we are told that the property in question has already been sold in execution of the decree and that the sale not only has been confirmed but has been followed by delivery of possession. The sale of the tenure undoubtedly is not void under any circumstances, and at best it is only voidable even if the contention of the learned Vakil on behalf of the appellant is assumed to be correct. In the circumstances the present appeal becomes ineffective.

2.

The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Ross, J.

I agree.