AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges

    Shiva Rao (Second Claimant) v. Nagappa And Others (First And Third Claimants)

    We are clearly of opinion that an appeal lies against the award in so far as it directs the money to be invested in the purchase of Government promissory notes, it being the Appellant's case that, no order for investment should have been made, the land being alienable. The language of section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) is wide enough to admit of an appeal in such a case as this.

    Though the precise nature of the family charity is not stated, yet it is the case of both the parties that the land taken up by Government was the endowment of the family charity. It is not the appellant's case that the charitable trust has been put an end to and so long as the trust lasts, the land is primâ facie not alienable. The order for investment was therefore rightly made. If the appellant wishes to have the investment changed and landed property acquired with the money deposited, that can of course be done on proper application.

    The appeal is dismissed with costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Shiva Rao (Second Claimant) v. Nagappa And Others (First And Third Claimants)
    (Aug 21, 1905)