ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BRAUND, WALI ULLAH, JJ.
Abdul Haq - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Hashim & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 29-03-1945
JUDGMENT
Wali Ullah, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising: out of a suit for possession of a house situate on a plot of land No. 146 of the abadi of mauza Chail. The plaintiffs case was that he was one of the zamindara of the plot in suit; that originally the house stood on it and it belonged to. Mt. Latifan and to one Jamal; that these persons abandoned the house and left the village. The house consequently reverted to the zamindars as Chail village is an agricultural village. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendants' possession over the house after-its purchase from Ali Abbas was illegal and without any right. In the alternative, the relief sought was for possession, over the site of the house after its demolition and removal of the materials thereof. The plain, tiff claimed to be one of the cosharers in. the plot in question which is situate, in patti Ikram Ullah in Mahal Fazila Bibi by reason of a deed of exchange dated 6th July 1934 obtained by the plaintiff from one Mohammad Arkan. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Their case was that plot No. 146 originally stood in patti Abdul Ghani (now patti Ikram Ullah) and that the entire abadi of patti Abdul Ghani which belonged to Abdul Ghani was partitioned among his five sons including two named Mohammad Ghaus and Mohammad Jan in the year 1905 and that the disputed land was allotted to Mohammad Ghaus. Mohammad Jan or his son Mohammad Arkan had no concern whatsoever with this plot of land. On 20th January 1917 in execution of a decree against Mohammad Ghaus some property of Mohammad Ghaus, including the disputed abadi plot No. 146, was sold to Mohammad Baqar : vide sale certificate Ex. A dated 12th, December 1918. On the death of Mohammad Baqar his widow Mt. Salamunnissa became owner of the plot in question.
2. On the plot in suit one Jahangir, a Riyaya in the village, had a house. Jhangir died leaving two sons, Roshan and Abdul. Roshan died leaving a son Jamal and Abdul died leaving a son Ali Raza and a daughter Mt. Latifan. Ali Raza also died leaving a daughter Mt. Soghra. The house of Jahangir came to be owned by these three persons, namely, Mt. Latifan, Mt. Soghra and Jamal, and these three persons sold their shares in it to Ali Abbas in the months of April and June 1932. Thus Ali Abbas became owner of the house which stood on the abadi plot No. 146. On 18th November 1936, Ali Abbas sold the house in question to the two defendants Abdul Haq and Sirajul Haq who are own brothers. The defendants thereafter rebuilt the house on this site after obtaining the permission from Mt. Salamunnissa who was the sole zamindar of the site No. 146. In view of these facts, it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer in plot No. 146 as he claimed; that the village Chail was not an agricultural village and there was a custom in the village under which the occupiers of houses in it had a right to transfer their houses along f with their sites; and that the suit was barred by estoppel. The Court of first I instance came to these findings: (1) Mohammad Arkan had no interest in plot No. 146 and he had no right to effect an exchange with the plaintiff. Consequently the plaintiff was not a zamindar in plot No. 146 in Patti Ikram Ullah, (2) That the village was an agricultural one and that there was no customary right in the village under which the occupiers of houses could transfer their houses along with the sites. The defendants by reason of their purchase, therefore, became owners of the materials Only; (3) Lastly, it was held that the plaintiff was estopped from bringing the present suit.
3. In view of these findings the suit was dismissed with costs. On appeal the learned Civil Judge found that the abadi of the village remained joint and that no private partition was established. He further found that the plaintiff on obtaining the transfer from Mohammad Arkan became a cosharer in patti Ikram Ullah and he could consequently main
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.