Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
PIGGOTT, RAFIQUE, JJ.
Musammat Bakhti Kuar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Pandit Ganga Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-12-1920
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment. The land in suit was at one time grove land situated in the neighbourhood of the city of Cawnpore. It is now waste land which, according to the finding of the learned District Judge, has wholly lost the character of a grove. This Ending does not seem to be challenged in the memorandum of appeal before us, but in any case it is obviously correct. On the pleadings it was admitted that the plaintiff was the Zemindar of the land and that the defendants entered into possession as tenants of the plaintiff. The possession of the defendant, therefore, was that of grove-holders. They have been cutting down the trees and building houses. The suit in ejectment is brought on the ground that a cause of action for the ejeetment of the defendants accrued to the plaintiff when the land entirely lost the character of a grove, The learned District Judge has held that this happened well within twelve years of the institution of the suit, so that there is no bar of limitation in the plaintiff's way, The defendants have raised various pleas in their memorandum of appeal, but in substance their pleas amount to this: That one house at least upon the land in suit was built wore than twelve years prior to the institution of the suit and that the building of this house alone would set limitation running against the plaintiff. We agree with the learned District Judge that the building of one house would not necessarily in itself, and in the absence of further evidence as to the terms of the contraet between the parties, cause the land to lose its character of a grove, or give the plaintiff a cause of action for a suit in ejectment. We, therefore, overrule this plea and dismiss this appeal with costs, including fees on the higher scale.
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
