SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(SC) 31

LORD TOMLIN, LORD THANKERTON, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES
KANHAIYA LAL – Appellant
Versus
AIM HAMID ALI – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants :H. S. L. Polak & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Watkins & Hunter.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 23 of 1931) from a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh (January 3, 1930) affirming a decree of the District Judge of Hardoi (April 29, 1929), which reversed a decree of the Munsif of Shahabad (September 25, 1928).

The appeal related to a small plot of land in the town of Pihani in the Hardoi district, of which plot the respondent and his predecessors were proprietors. At the settlement in Oudh in 1864 the plot of land and a kachcha house thereon were occupied by one Ichcha Kori, whose family had rights of occupation. In 1916 Ichcha Koris surviving descendants executed a usufructuary mortgage to the first appellant, whose house adjoined the plot. Between 1924 and 1927 the appellants, who were brothers, demolished the house and erected a masonry thakurdwara, or Hindu temple, at a cost of about Rs. 40,000. In December, 1927, the respondent brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif claiming possession of the land, and for an order that the appellants should remove the materials of the thakurdwara, and that otherwise the respondent should have possession thereof. He alleged that Ichchas family had died out (which proved not to be the case), also that the familys righ












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top