Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GOKUL PRASAD, J.
Mukhtara - Appellant
Versus
Sardara - Respondent
Decided On : 10-01-1923
JUDGMENT
Gokul Prasad, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house against the defendant as a trespasser. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. The defendant went up in appeal and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court referred certain issues for trial to the Court of first instance. After the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten days' time allowed. The learned District Judge thereupon without considering the findings on the merits decided the appeal considering those findings to be final, and dismissed the appeal. The defendant comes here in second appeal and says that this action of the learned District Judge was not warranted by law, and that he ought to have himself considered whether the findings were good or bad findings and should have then decided the case. In support of this contention the case of Mumtaz Begam v. Fateh Husain 6 A. 391 : A.W.N. (1884) 129 : 4 Ind.Dec. 61 has been referred to me. This contention is fully borne out by the ruling relied upon and the learned District Judge ought to have himself considered the correctness or otherwise of the findings returned by the Munsif before deciding the appeal. I, therefore, refer the following issue to the lower Appellate Court for decision:
(sic) Was the house in dispute appurtenant to Shibba's holding or not, and did it revert to the zemindar on his dying issueless?
2. The Court below will decide the issue on the evidence already on the record and return its finding to this Court at an early date. On receipt of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.
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
