GHULBA Vs. MAROTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the pleader for the appellants in this case but can see no reason for interference. The distinction which he has attempted to draw between the decision in Bikram v. Thakur Ganesh Singh A.I.R. 1927 Nag. 129, where a surrender was concerned, and the present case, where a transfer is concerned, seems to me utterly-inapposite in view of the reasoning in paras. 7 to 12 of the decision just quoted. We are not here concerned with the devolution of the interest of an absolute occupancy tenant after his death, but with the transfer made during the lifetime of defendant 4. As has been shown in para. 6 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, Mt Bindi did all that was required of her under Sections 5 and 6. C.P. Tenancy Act 1920, before making the transfer in question. Decisions like those in Vithu v. Mt. Mendri [1909] 5 N.L.R. 172, and Bhura v. Ramrao [1912] 8 N.L.R. 154 have been sufficiently dealt with by Hallifax, A J.C., in his comments on ratio decidendi in Vasudeo v. Bhiwa A.I.R. 1925 Nag. 306. As at present advised, I can see no reason for differing from the view taken by Hallifax, A.J.C., in the last case quoted and I find myself in full agreement with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.

(2.) THE appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed without notice to the respondents.