# Hem Singh and Another v. HamamSingh and Another

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 51
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE No. 59 of 1953
- **Bench:** MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c.r, VIVIAN BosE, Ghulam Hasan Jj
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/hem-singh-and-another-v-hamamsingh-and-another-357
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Hindu Law-Female-Alienation in her favour-Whether
any
presumption of law that she does not get absolute or alienable ·interest
i1! the property-Whether the case of a male and that of a female'
rilitferent.
It may be taken as well settled that there is no warrant , for
the proposition of law that when a grant of immoveable
property
is made to a Hindu female she does not get an absolute or alienable interest in such property unless such power is expressly
conferred upon her.
The law is that there is no presumption one way or the other
and there is no difference between the case of a male and the case
·of a female and the fact that the. donee is a woman does .not make
the gift any the less absolute where the words would be ·sufficient
·to convey an absolute estate to a male.
Mohamed Shumsool v. Shewukram (2 I.A. 7),
Nagammal v.
Subbalakshmi [(1947) I.M.L.J. 641 and Ram
Gopal v. 'Nand Lal
<(A.LR. 1951 S. C. 139)
referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
No. 59 of 1953.
JURISDICTION :
Civil
. Appeal
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the
5th April, 1950, of the High Court of Rajasthan at
Jaipur in Case No. 24
of Samvat 2005 (Rei.view
modi-
:fying the Decree dated the 3rd March, 1949, of the High
•Court of the
former
Jaipur
State
in
Civil
Second
Appeal No. 187
of Samvat
2004
against the · Decree
1954
Hem Singh and
Another
v.
HamamSingh
and Another .
1954
April 9.
195<l
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad,
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C.J.
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
dated the 15th April,. 1948, of the Court of the District
Judge, Jaipur City, in Civil Appeal No. 40 of Samvat
2004 arising out of the decree dated the 23rd August,
1947, of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in Suit No. 66 of
Samvat 2002).
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Rajinder Narain, with him}
for the appellant.
D. M. Bhandari, (K. N. Aggarwala and R. N. Sachthey, with him) for the respondent.
1954. April 9. The . Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This is an appeal from
the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, dated the 5th April, 1950, modifying the decree of the High Court of the former Jaipur
State, dated the 3rd March,
1949, on an application for
review in a second appeal concerning a suit for possession of propertv.
The property in dispute originally belonged to one
Ramchandrn who died sonless in
the year
1903. He
was survived by his
mother, Sheokori, his widow, Mst. ·
Badni, and his two daughters, Bhuri and Laxmi. It
is alleged that he made an oral will under which he
bequeathed the property in dispute . to his daughter,
Laxmi.
On the 6th September,
1906,
Mst.
Sheokori
and Mst. Badni, purporting to act in accordance . with
the directions of the oral will, executed and . registered ·
a deed of gift of the property in dispute in favour of
Mst.
Laxmi. The gift deed
contains the following
recitals :-
"These houses are made a gift to you according tothe will of your father, Ramchandra ......... In this way,
these houses belonging to us
were purchased by your.'
father Ramchandra, and he in his last days having made
a gift of these houses to you, made a will to us that he·
had made a gift of that house to his daughter, Laxmi,
and directed us to get the gift deed registered in her
name.
He further said that if we
or our
relations,
kinsmen, creditors do raise any dispute with. her he·
would 'damangir hoonga' catch hold of him by his:
·-
-
+
'(
)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
53
garments. According to his aforesaid will, we have got
this gift deed executed in your favour, while in best of
our senses and in discharge of our sacred duty enjoyed
by Dharma ........ No other person except .you has got any
claim over the house. You deal with your house in any
way you like. If anybody takes back the land gifted
by himself or his ancestors, he will live in hell as along
as the sun and moon shines."
The scribe, it seems, did not in appropriate language
express the directions ·.of the two widows: and his ideas
of the legal situation were somewhat confused

## Text

. .(
-
S.C.R
SUPREME COURT R:EPORTS
Customary Law , in the, Punjab; , adoption . is '. secular; in
ch.aracter, the. object :being to• appoint an heir :and . .'the
ruks relating. to ,ceremonies and, to• preferences,.in. selection have to be held } to· be · directory and adoptions
made in disregard of them are not invalid.
There is no substance in the appeal and we dismiss
:ir with costs.
.
. Appeal dismissed.
NATHOO LAL
v.
DURGA PRASAD
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c.r, VIVIAN BosE and
GHULAM HASAN JJ.J
Hindu Law-Female-Alienation in her favour-Whether
any
presumption of law that she does not get absolute or alienable ·interest
i1! the property-Whether the case of a male and that of a female'
rilitferent.
It may be taken as well settled that there is no warrant , for
the proposition of law that when a grant of immoveable
property
is made to a Hindu female she does not get an absolute or alienable interest in such property unless such power is expressly
conferred upon her.
The law is that there is no presumption one way or the other
and there is no difference between the case of a male and the case
·of a female and the fact that the. donee is a woman does .not make
the gift any the less absolute where the words would be ·sufficient
·to convey an absolute estate to a male.
Mohamed Shumsool v. Shewukram (2 I.A. 7),
Nagammal v.
Subbalakshmi [(1947) I.M.L.J. 641 and Ram
Gopal v. 'Nand Lal
<(A.LR. 1951 S. C. 139)
referred to.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
No. 59 of 1953.
JURISDICTION :
Civil
. Appeal
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the
5th April, 1950, of the High Court of Rajasthan at
Jaipur in Case No. 24
of Samvat 2005 (Rei.view
modi-
:fying the Decree dated the 3rd March, 1949, of the High
•Court of the
former
Jaipur
State
in
Civil
Second
Appeal No. 187
of Samvat
2004
against the · Decree
1954
Hem Singh and
Another
v.
HamamSingh
and Another .
1954
April 9.
195<l
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad,
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C.J.
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
dated the 15th April,. 1948, of the Court of the District
Judge, Jaipur City, in Civil Appeal No. 40 of Samvat
2004 arising out of the decree dated the 23rd August,
1947, of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in Suit No. 66 of
Samvat 2002).
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand, (Rajinder Narain, with him}
for the appellant.
D. M. Bhandari, (K. N. Aggarwala and R. N. Sachthey, with him) for the respondent.
1954. April 9. The . Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J.-This is an appeal from
the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, dated the 5th April, 1950, modifying the decree of the High Court of the former Jaipur
State, dated the 3rd March,
1949, on an application for
review in a second appeal concerning a suit for possession of propertv.
The property in dispute originally belonged to one
Ramchandrn who died sonless in
the year
1903. He
was survived by his
mother, Sheokori, his widow, Mst. ·
Badni, and his two daughters, Bhuri and Laxmi. It
is alleged that he made an oral will under which he
bequeathed the property in dispute . to his daughter,
Laxmi.
On the 6th September,
1906,
Mst.
Sheokori
and Mst. Badni, purporting to act in accordance . with
the directions of the oral will, executed and . registered ·
a deed of gift of the property in dispute in favour of
Mst.
Laxmi. The gift deed
contains the following
recitals :-
"These houses are made a gift to you according tothe will of your father, Ramchandra ......... In this way,
these houses belonging to us
were purchased by your.'
father Ramchandra, and he in his last days having made
a gift of these houses to you, made a will to us that he·
had made a gift of that house to his daughter, Laxmi,
and directed us to get the gift deed registered in her
name.
He further said that if we
or our
relations,
kinsmen, creditors do raise any dispute with. her he·
would 'damangir hoonga' catch hold of him by his:
·-
-
+
'(
)
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
53
garments. According to his aforesaid will, we have got
this gift deed executed in your favour, while in best of
our senses and in discharge of our sacred duty enjoyed
by Dharma ........ No other person except .you has got any
claim over the house. You deal with your house in any
way you like. If anybody takes back the land gifted
by himself or his ancestors, he will live in hell as along
as the sun and moon shines."
The scribe, it seems, did not in appropriate language
express the directions ·.of the two widows: and his ideas
of the legal situation were somewhat confused but
there can be no manner of doubt that the two executants were not conferring themselves any title which
they had in the property. on Laxmi but were. merely
giving effect to the oral will as executors and were putting the legatee in possession of the bequeathed property
in this manner. That the widows had no title themselves
1s
evident from the fact that Mst. Sheokori also joined
111 executing the . gift deed.
Admittedly . Ramchandra's
estate could not devolve on her.
Bhuri, the second daughter, died in the year 1907,
while Mst. · Badni, the widow, died in the year,, 1927.
Mst. Laxmi remained in possession of the property till
her death in the year 1928.
After her. death Balabux,
her husband, on the 5th of July, 1930, claiming as heir
to her mortgaged the house in dispute to the defendantappellant Nathoo Lal and later on the 5th of . ,October,
1933, he sold it to him and put him into possession of
it and since then he is in possession.
On the 4th October, 1945, that is one day before the
expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of the
defendant's entry into possession of
the house,
the
plaintiff, son of Mst. · Bhuri, sister of Mst. Laxmi, claim~
mg as an heir to her estate, filed this suit in f orma
pauperis for possession
of the house.
He alleged that
he was in possession of the house till the 24th of August;
1933,
through his tenant,
that after it was vacated by
the tenant he locked it
and
went away to his native
village Harmara ;
and that on the 27th of September,
1944,
he came to know that the house had been taken
pos.,es~ion ·of by the appellant during his, absen~e ... It
1954
Nathoo La.I
v.
Durga Prasad.
Mehr Chand
MahajanC.J.
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad.
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C. J.
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[~955]
was contended ·by him that Balabui, had .no right-.~ither
to mortgage·or sell the- house and' that.Laxmi was.pot
the ·absolute. owner of the .property but had_.,only a
limited estate -in ·it, . and .on .her <lea.th' he was ,entitled to
possession of it.
. ,. , ,
, . ..
. , .-
.. , "
.. On the' 28th. o{ A\lgust; 1947,' . the 'suit· was' dismjssed
by the Civil Judge, who. held that Msi. Laxmi became
the absolute owner
of the property; · and the' plaintiff
therefore had no title .to claim possession of i.t after her
death, < Balabux being her stridhan, heir. ··The
learned
Judge. however held that tl1e. suit was. within .. lim.itaticm
On appeal, this decision -was· affirmed
by
the ... District
Judge. He expressed the. opinion that the widow. in
executing the deed , of gift was only acting as an executrix of the oral will .made by Ramchandra at his .deathbed and that Laxmi, -got .under. this. will an absolute
estate m the . suit property. The plea of. Jimitation
raised by the defendant. was
negatived on the fin.ding
that the plaintiff .was in possession of it within twelve
years of the suit. ·
.,
Plaintiff preferred a second appeal to the High Court
of Jaipur and this time with success. The High Court
held that· after the death of Laxmi the plaintiff continued in possession of the house till he was· dispossessed
by the defendant on the 5th of October, 1933, and that
he was in . possession even durin'g her lifetime. On the
mam question in the case the High Court held that
though the house was bequeathed to Laxmi by Ramchandra under an oral will, there was no proof that ·it
conferred upon her an absolute interest m the property
and that in the absence of any
evidence indicating. that
the donor intended to convey
an absolute
interest to
her, the gift being in favour of a female. could only confer upon her a limited life estate and on her death revert to. the donor's heirs and the plaintiff being• such
an heir was entitled to succeed. In the result the appeal
was allowed and the plaintiff's suit was · decreed with
costs throughout.
The defendant applied for· a review of· this judgment.
Meanwhile the Jaipur High Court· had become ·defunct
and the review was. heard by the Rajasthan High Court
'
' -
-
+
-
}
S.C.R.
SUPREME CdlJR']_) REPORTS
55
as successor to· the Jaipur High Court' under the ·High
Courts Ordinance and was partially . allowed on the 5th
of April,· 1950, and the ·decree was accordingly amended and it was provided therein that the· plaintiff shall
not be entitled to · possession of the house except on
payment of Rs. 4,000 to the defendant as costs of improvements and repairs.
It is· against this · judgment
and decree passed after the coming into force of the
Constitution of India ·that the present appeal has
been
preferred to this
Court by leave of the Rajasthan High
Court under article 133 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution.
The learned counsel for the respondent raised a prelimmary objection
as
to
the
maintainability of the
appeal. He contended that according to
the Code of
Civil Procedure of the Jaipur State the decision of the
Jaipur High Court had become final as no appeal lay
from it and hence this appeal was incompetent. It was
argued that the proceedings in the suit decided in 1945
had concluded by the decision of the High Court given
in 1949, and the review judgment which modified the
decree in regard to improvements, could not entitle
the appellant to reopen the decision of the High Court
of Jaipur given in 1949.
In our op1111on, this objection is not well foun,foi.
The only operative decree in the suit which finally and
conclusively determines the rights of the parties is the
decree passed on the 5th of April, 1950, by the Rajasthan High Court and that having been passed after the
coming into force of the Constitution of India, the provisions of article 133 are attracted to it and it is appealable to this Court provided the requirements
of
that
article are fulfilled. The Code of Civil Procedure
of the
Jaipur State could not determine the jurisdiction of
this Court and has no relevancy to the maintainability
of the appeal. The requirements of article 133 having
been fulfilled, this appeal is clearly competent.
·
The learned counsel then contended that the High
Court was in error in granting the certificate m this
case. We are unable to agree.
An inquiry was made
into the valuation of the property and it was reported
that its value was Rs. 20,000. or that the decision affected
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasarl.
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C. J.
1954
Nathoo Lal
.
v.
.
Durga Prasad.
,Mehr Chand.
Mahajan C. ].
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
property of the. value · of . above
Rs.
20,000. A .. substantial questioff of law . was ·involved in the case,
that
1s, whether a testamentary· • disposition by a Hindu in
favour of a female .. heir conferred on her only a limited estate in the absence of evidence that . he . intended
to confer on her· an ·absolute interest . in the property.
In these ·circumstances the High Court .was fully justified in granting ·the··· certificate. · We ourselves would
have been prepared to admit this appeal under our
extraordinary powers conferred by article 136(1) of the
Constitution, if such ·a certificate had not been given
m
. the . case .. For. the reasons given above, we see no
force
in either
of these
two
preliminary objections
which we overrule. ,
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand for the appellant contended
that the. Courts below . were in error in .holding that the
plaintiff's suit was within limitation.
He
urged . that
in order to bring the suit within limitation the plaintiff
in paragraph 5. of the plaint alleged that after the death
of Laxmi he kept tenants in the house; realised
the
rent· and enjoyed it .and that the· last tenant vacated on
the 24th ·August, 1933, and thereafter he went to his
native place after locking the house, but that this. allegation had not been made good by him, and as there
~as no' evidence . that he locked the house, it should be
held that plaintiff's possession discontinued
with · effect
froIT\ the. 24th August, 1933, and hence his suit· brought
more than twelve 'years ffom that date . was not within
time:
·
· ·
··
·
·
It has 'been found by the C~urts below that the plaintiff was in possession of this house even during the lifetime of La)\mi . and c9ntinued in possession
thereafter.
Even if the· tenant vacated. the house on the 24th August,
1933,
and the plaintiff did not lock it,
his possession
would be presumed . to conti111.1e till he was dispossessed
by ·some one, The law presumes in favour of coptinuity
of possession. 'I'he three Courts below have unanimously
held that on the evidence it was established that after
the . death · of· Laxmi plaintiff continued in possession of
tlie house and the suit was within limitation. There are
no valid grounds for reviewing this finding in the fourth
Cou1t· and ihe contention is therefore negatived.
•
--
-
\
\
)-
S.C.R.
SUPREME C©URT REPORTS
57
Dr. Bakshi Tek Chand next contended that Laxmi
acquir.ed an absolute
title in the · suit property . ··under
the will of· her father and that the High· Court was in
error in holding that unless · there were express words
indica~ing that the donor who had absolute interest in
the gifted property intended to convey an ' absolute interest to her, the gift in favour of an heir who would
ordinarily inhedt a limited
interest could riot be
construed
as
conferring 1 an absolute
interest. The
learned counsel for. the respondent on the . other. hand
raised two · · contentions; He urged in the first instance
that it seems that .the intention of Ramchandra was
to make a. gift of the suit property in favour. of Laxmi
but he was unable to perfect the gift by executing a
registered deed, , being on his
deathbed and · in that
situation the property. devolved on his widow by . inheritance and it only came to Laxmi under the ·widow's
gift and under it she could
not get a larger interest
than what the widow herself possessed, . namely,. a limited life est'ate,
which terminated on her death. In the
alternative, . it was said that there was no evidence as to
the terms of the oral will and that beirig so, the' gift
being in favour of. a female heir.. . the presumption in
the absence of ,evidence to the contrary was
that the
donee got only a limited life interest in the bequeathed
property.
In our judgment, there is force in the ·contention of
Dr. Tek Chand and none of the contentions raised by
the
respondent's
counsel
have
any
validity.
That
Ramchandra bequeathed ·the suit · property · and
did
not gift it to his daughter Laxmi is a fact which cannot
be questioned at this stage.
It was · admitted ·by ··the
plaintiff himself . in the witness box. · This is what he
said:-
"Ramchandra had made a will in 'favour of Mst.
Laxmi and irr that connection my maternal grandmother and maternal great ·grandmother got the · gift
deed registered. This very gift deed was got ·executed
by my maternal grandmother and materrial great grandmother and had got it registered. Through this gift
deed Mst. Laxmi held possession over it till she was
alive. She had kept deponent as her son and so
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad.
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C. J.
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad.
Mehr Chand
MahaJan C. ].
58
SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS
[1955]
she got the rent ·notes executed ·in· my
name!" 'What
1s admitted by a party to be true must be·· presumed· to be true unless the contrary is
shown. There
is no· evidence to the contrary m the case. The gift
deed fully supports the
testimony of the plaintiff on
this point. It definitely states that according to
the
will, the gift deed was executed· in favour of Laxmi and
it further recites that Laxmi was entitled to deal with
the house in any manner she liked. Those who were
directed to execute the oral will made by Ramchandra
must be presumed to have carried out his directions m
accordance· with his wishes.
It seems clear
that the
intention of the testator was to benefit his daughter,
Laxmi, and to confer upon her the same title as he himself possessed.
She was
the sole object of his
bounty
and on the attendant circumstances of this. case it 1s
plain that he intended to confer on her whatever title
he himself had.
Laxmi therefore became the absolute
owner of the property under the terms of the oral will
of her father and the plaintiff is no heir to the property
which under
the
law devolved on Laxmi's husband
who had full right to alienate it.
We are further of the opm1on that the High Court
was in error in thinking that it is a settled principle of
law that unless there are express terms in the deed of
gift to indicate that the donor who had absolute interest
intended to convey absolute ownership, a gift in favour
of an heir who inherits only a limited interest cannot
be construed as conferring an absolute interest. It
1s
true that this was the principle once deduced from the
Privy
Council
decision
m Mahomed
Shumsool v.
Shewukram(') wherein it was held that a bequest to a
daughter-in-law passed a limited
estate. The proposition laid down in Mahomed Shumsool's case was construed by the High Courts in India to mean that a gift of
immovable property to a woman could not be deemed
to confer upon her an absolute estate of inheritance
which she could alienate at her pleasure unless the
deed or will gave her in express terms a heritable estate
or power of alienation. Later decisions of the Judicial
Committee made it clear that if words were used
(1)2 I.A. 7•
.(
•
-
\
•
--
-
t
\ ~.
,·;
! ,·
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT· REPORTS
59
conferring absolute
ownership upon the wife, the wife
enjoyed the rights of ownership without their being conferred by;. express
and
additional terms.
Shumsool' s
case(1) has been ·examined in recent years in some High
Courts and it has been observed that according to the
law as understood at present there is . no' presumption
one way or the other and there is no difference between
the case of a male and the case of a female, and the
.fact that the donee is . a woman does not make· the gift
ahy the less absolute where the words would be sufficient to convey an absolute estate io a male
(see
Nagammal v. Subbalakshmi Ammal (2). The matter has
now been set at rest by the decision of this Court in
Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal(3). In this case it was observed
as follows :-
"It may be taken to be quite settled that there is
no warrant for the proposition of law that when a grant
of an immovable property is made to a Hindu female,
she does not get an absolute or alienable interest in
such property, unless such power is expressly conferred
upon her. The reasoning adopted by Mitter J. of the
Calcutta High Court in Mst. Kollani Kuar v. Luchmi
Kuar(4), .which was approved of and accepted by
the Judicial Committee in a number of decisions,
seems to me to be
unassailable. It was held by the
Privy Council as early as m the case of Tagore v.
Tagore(5)
that if an estate were given to a man
without express words of inheritance, it would, in
the
absence
of a
conflicting
context,
carry,
by
Hindu Law, an estate of inheritance. This
IS
the
general principle of law which is recognized and embodied in section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act and
unless it is shown that under Hindu Law a gift to a
female means a limited gift or carries
with it the restrictions or disabilities similar to those that exist in a
'widow's estate,' there IS no justification for ·departing from this principle. There
IS
certainly no such
provision in Hindu Law and no text could be supplied
in support of the same.
"The position, therefore,
Is . that to convey an
absofote estate to a Hindu female, no express power
(il 2 I.A. 7·
(4) 24 W.R. 395·
(2 (1947) 1 M.L.J. 64.
(5) 9 Beng. L.R. 377. P.C.
(3 A.LR. 1951 S.C. 139.
5-86 S. C. India/59
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
-Durga Ptasatl.
Mehr Chand
Mahajan C. J.
1954
Nathoo Lal
v.
Durga Prasad.
M<MChand
Mah<ijan C. J,
1954
April.,,
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
of alienation need be given ; it is enough if words are
used of such amplitude as would convey full rights of
·ownership." The learned Judges of the High Court
were therefore clearly wrong in law in holding that the
will having been made by the father in favour of his
daughter, it should be presumed that he intended to .
give her a limited life estate.
For. the reasons given above we allow the appeal, set
aside the decree of the High Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit and restore the decree of the trial Court dismissing· the plaintiff's suit. In
the
circumstances
of
this case we will make no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
CHHOTE KHAN,. DECEASED, REPRESENTED
... BY HIS SON, HARMAT, AND OTHERS
v.
MAL KHAN AND OTHERS.
[Suom
RANJAN
DAs, . GHULAM
HASAN
and
·-,.
B. JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]
Wajih-Ul..arz-Entry
r"egarding
agreement
therein-Whether
holds good .after the expiry of period of Settlement.
'
•
Held, that an entry regafding agrccinent in a Wajib-ul-arz holds
.-.
good during the currency of the Settlement and dOcs not survive
the expiry of the period of Settlement.
Hira and Others v. Muhamadi and Others (16 P.R. · 1915
at
p. 89), Allah Bakhsh
and
Others v. Mirza Bashir·ud-Din and
Others (1932 L.T.R. 56) and Lieut. Chaudhri Chattar Singh v. Mt . • · -4
Shugni and Another (A.LR. 1941 L.ah. 239) referred to.
'>
. CmL
APPELLATE
JUR1sDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 61 of 1951.
Appeal from the -Judgment and Decree· dated the
10th November; 1944, of the High Court of Judicature
at Lahore in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 259 of
1942, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated
the 29th July;
1942, of the Court of the Extra Assist-
:~
ant Settlement Officer and · Assistant Collector · of · the
'
.