LORD SALVESEN, SIR JOHN WALLIS, LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD PHILLIMORE
KRISHN DAS – Appellant
Versus
NATHU RAM – Respondent
Judgement
Appeal (No. 183 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court (May 30, 1921) reversing a decree of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.
The suit was brought by the respondents in 1918 to set aside a sale of joint property made in 1902 by their father; he was made a defendant but did not contest the suit.
The facts, which were no longer in dispute, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge set aside the sale, but an appeal to the District Court was allowed and the suit dismissed.
On a second appeal to the High Court (Lindsay and Kanhaiya JJ.) the decree of the District Court was set aside and a decree made for possession conditionally upon the plaintiffs paying into Court the sum of Rs.3000. The reasons of the learned judges are stated in the present judgment.
1926. Nov. 1. Dube for the appellant.
Hyam for the respondent.
[In addition to the cases referred to in the judgment reference was made to Phool Chand Lal v. Rughoobuns Suhaye (( 1868) 9 Suth. W. R. 108.); Mutteeram Kowar v. Uopaul Sahoo (( 1873) 11 Ben. L. R. 416.); Jainarain Pande v. Bhagwan Pande. (( 1922) I. L. R. 44 A. 68
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.