Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DALAL, J.
Nasratyar Khan - Appellant
Versus
Brij Lal & Ors. - Respondents
Decided On : 05-11-1927
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J. - The plaintiff zamindar sued for the ejectment of the defendant in the revenue Court on the ground that the land in suit had lost the character of a grove. Both subordinate Courts have held that this was not so, that some trees still stood on the land and that the defendant was entitled to plant new trees in place of those which he had cut down and should have been given an opportunity of doing so. The defendant had not cultivated the land, expressed his intention of planting new trees and alleged that he was prevented by the plaintiff from doing so. It is argued here that under the wajib-ul-arz the defendant has no right to plant new trees in place of old ones which he had cut. Such, however, is not the meaning of the clause in the wajid-ul-arz. It was read over to me. There all the existing groves, including the one in suit, were described by numbers, and then it was stated that in future no one else shall be entitled to plant a grove without the consent of the zamindar. Such a contract does not prevent the owner of a grove from planting new trees in the grove which had existed prior to this record-of-rights. The case of Ishar Din v. Mumtaz Husain Khan [1917] 39 I.C. 974 was quoted on behalf of the appellant. There the planting of trees in an existing grove was prohibited. Such is not the case here. I dismiss this appeal with costs.
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
