Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Balbhaddar Prasad Vs. Mt. Bitto

Balbhaddar Prasad vs Mt. Bitto

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 13, 1929
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480060

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES Definition clause: [Markandey Katju & H.L. Dattu, JJ] Meaning given to an expression in one Statute cannot be applied to another Statute. - 2. In our opinion, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it.

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balbhaddar Prasad

Respondent

Mt. Bitto

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1929All754; 118Ind.Cas.188

Excerpt

- interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute. - 2. in our opinion, the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it.1. this is an application is revision from an order, dated 14th january 1928, refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw the money deposited under section 83, t.p. act, by the mortgagor. the money was deposited in favour of the present applicant and his father on 16th october 1922. an application was made on 9th december 1922, on behalf of the present applicant alone, which was consigned to the record room on the ground that both the mortgagees had not joined. later on, a fresh application was made by the applicant, alleging that his father had not been heard of for more than seven years, and must be presumed to be dead. the learned judge has considered that he is not competent to make enquiries into the death of the applicant's father, and has thought that without the consent of the mortgagor he cannot order the money to be paid to only one of the mortgagees.2. in our opinion, the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it. the amount was deposited to the credit of the two mortgagees; but the court was competent to consider who the mortgagee was at the time when the application was made, that is to say, whether the present applicant was alone entitled to withdraw the money. this may be so, because he is now the sole surviving member of the family, or it may be that he is the karta of the hindu family or otherwise authorized to withdraw the money. we accordingly set aside the order and send this case back or disposal according to law.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application is revision from an order, dated 14th January 1928, refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw the money deposited under Section 83, T.P. Act, by the mortgagor. The money was deposited in favour of the present applicant and his father on 16th October 1922. An application was made on 9th December 1922, on behalf of the present applicant alone, which was consigned to the record room on the ground that both the mortgagees had not joined. Later on, a fresh application was made by the applicant, alleging that his father had not been heard of for more than seven years, and must be presumed to be dead. The learned Judge has considered that he is not competent to make enquiries into the death of the applicant's father, and has thought that without the consent of the mortgagor he cannot order the money to be paid to only one of the mortgagees.

2. In our opinion, the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in it. The amount was deposited to the credit of the two mortgagees; but the Court was competent to consider who the mortgagee was at the time when the application was made, that is to say, whether the present applicant was alone entitled to withdraw the money. This may be so, because he is now the sole surviving member of the family, or it may be that he is the karta of the Hindu family or otherwise authorized to withdraw the money. We accordingly set aside the order and send this case back or disposal according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial