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

1934 Supreme(SC) 40

SIR JOHN WALLIS, LORD TOMLIN, LORD MACMILLAN
PIR BAKHSH – Appellant
Versus
MAHOMED TAHAR – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitors for respondent: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 36 of 1933) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (January 19, 1931) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Sukkur (September 11, 1926).

On December 20, 1921, the respondent, in circumstances which appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee, instituted a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the appellant claiming a declaration of his title to, and possession of, a plot of land. The Secretary of State did not defend the suit. The appellant by an amendment to his written statement pleaded " as the plaintiff has agreed to convey this plot to the defendant, and as possession is with him, he could not legally be evicted."

The trial judge dismissed the suit. Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decision was reversed on the ground that the defendants possession could not be referred to the agreement to sell to him. A decree was made for possession and mesne profits, and that compensation be paid to the defendant for improvements effected by him.

1934. June 25, 26. Dunne K.C. and Pringle for the appellant. The plaintiffs agreement to sell the property to the defendant was capable of being spec























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