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

1926 Supreme(SC) 42

CHIEF ANGLIN, VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD DARLING
UMED MAL – Appellant
Versus
CHAND MAL – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellants :Ranken Ford & Chester. Solicitors for respondent: Barrow, Rogers & Nevill.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 105 of 1925) by special leave from a decree of the Court of the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer-Mcrwara (September 17, 1919) reversing a decree of the District Judge which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge.

The appeal arose out of a suit brought in Ajmer by the appellants to recover possession from the respondent of land there situate.

The facts, and the effect of the decisions-in India, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The only question of law upon the appeal was whether the Court of the Chief Commissioner had jurisdiction in revision proceedings. By the Ajmer Regulations that Court has the powers of revision given to a High Court by s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1926. June 26, 27, 28. Sir George Lowndes K.C. and E. B. Raikes for the appellants. The Chief Commissioner had no power under s. 115 of the Code to entertain revision proceedings. The lower Courts had neither exercised a jurisdiction not vested in them, nor acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The question was purely one of parcels and not within

s. 115. [Reference was made to Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheo Bakhsh Singh (














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