AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 225 wordsBlair and Burkitt, JJ.
This case arises under the Land Acquisition Act, No. I of 1894. Land had been taken in which the respondent here had a life estate. Whether that of a Hindu widow or a daughter we are not informed. In neither case had she the power to alienate except for legal necessity. The District Judge, in the face of an objection by the reversioners, has ordered the purchase-money to be paid to the Musammat. This order cannot stand. The case is manifestly one provided for by Section 32 of Act No. I of 1894, We set aside the order of the Court below, and direct that, under the provisions of Section 32, the money shall be invested in the purchase of other lands, to be held under the like title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall have been deposited was held, or, if such purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government or other approved securities as the Court shall think fit. Payment of the rent or other proceeds of such investment will be made to Musammat Mohri as the person for the time being entitled to the possession of such land. The Judge will further strictly comply with the other provisions of Section 32. We make no order as to costs.