Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
STRAIGHT, TYRRELL, JJ.
Udit Singh - Appellant
Versus
Padarath Singh & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 07-12-1885
JUDGMENT
Straight, J. - The article of the Limitation Law admittedly applicable to this case is Article 120, and the only question is, from what point are the six years to be held to commence. Now, although the final order for the foreclosure was made in December 1875, Padarath Singh, the vendee, was compelled to bring a suit for declaration of his title and possession, and it was not until the 28th April 1881, that he obtained a decree, under which possession was subsequently given him on the 30th November 1883. For the reasons given by me in Rasik Lal v. Gajraj Singh ILR All. 414 I think that the pre-emptor is entitled to contend that his full right to impeach the sale had not accrued until the validity of the sale, as between the vendor and vendee, had been established by a Court, for non constat, but that it might have been found invalid, in which case his cause of action would have disappeared. It is not necessary for me to discuss here whether I am prepared to adopt the view expressed by my brothers Oldfield and Brodhurst in the case of Prag Chaubey v. Bhajan Chaudhri ILR All. 291; as taking the decree of the 28th April 1881, as the starting-point, the present suit, which was started on the 27th March 1884, is abundantly within time. In my opinion this appeal must be decreed, and the decrees of the lower Courts being reversed on the preliminary point on which they threw out the suit, the case will be remanded to the Munsif, u/s 562 of the Civil Procedure Code, for disposal on the merits. The costs hitherto incurred will be costs in the cause.
Tyrrell, J.
2. I agree in the views stated and the order made by my learned brother.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
