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

1921 Supreme(SC) 9

LORD BUCKMASTER, LORD DUNEDIN, LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, AMEER ALI
MA SHWE MYA – Appellant
Versus
MAUNG MO HNAUNG – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
Solicitors for respondent: T. L. Wilson & Co.

Judgement

Appeal and Cross-appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (August 28, 1918), reversing a decree of the District Judge, Magwe.

The suit was instituted by the respondent in 1913, claiming specific performance of a verbal agreement alleged to have been made by the appellant in 1912 to transfer to the respondent three specified sites for oil wells in Upper Burma. The agreement was alleged in relation to an agreement in writing made in 1903 by which the appellant agreed to sell to the respondent three out of twelve sites allotted to her for that year.

The facts of the case and the effect of the decisions of the Courts in Burma appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The respondent cross-appealed (by special leave) from the appellate Courts refusal to grant specific performance of the agreement of 1903.

1921. Jan. 28. De Gruyther, K.C., Parikh and J. K. Roy for the appellant.

Sir Erle Richards K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the respondent.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

LORD BUCKMASTER. The appellant in this case was the defendant in a suit that was instituted by the respondent on February 22, 1913, seeking specific pe










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