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

1929 Supreme(All) 310

Shiam Lal – Appellant
Versus
Moti Ram – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. This application in revision must be allowed. The plaintiff Shyam Lal sued for recovery of possession over certain properties. The parties agreed that they would abide by a statement made by a certain gentleman, Khem Chand. Mr. Khem Chand made a statement to the effect that if defendant 1 paid the sum of Rs. 2,100 within two months of the date of his making the statement, which was 10th June 1927, the suit would stand dismissed, and if defendant 1 failed to pay, the suit would stand decreed. The learned Munsif before whom the case was, passed a decree in those terms. Defendant 1 on 10th August 1927, on which day, the two months' period expired, paid into Court the sum of Rs. 1,150. He, further, made an application to the Court for granting three months' further time to him, to pay up the balance. On 12th August 1927, the learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, refused that application. On the same date, defendant 1 deposited the balance of the money. On the deposit being made, the learned Munsiff made a declaration that this payment would have a retrospective effect, as if the money had been paid on 10th August 1927. The effect of this declaration was that the decree

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