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

1930 Supreme(All) 398

DALAL
Suraj Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Dalal, J. - I am afraid that the Sessions Judge has not got a grip of the facts of the case and misunderstood them. There can be no doubt; that the patwari on 17th September 1928, gave a wrong copy of certain entries in the village records to the complainant Ram Nandan. The wrongness of the entries consisted in the patwari (appellant) not noting in the copy that besides Mt. Jhagri there were other tenants of the plots in suit. It is, however, important to remember that the complainant Ram Nandan had already purchased what he considered a fixed-rate tenancy from Mt. Jhagri prior to 17th September, that is, five days prior, on 12th September 1928. It cannot, therefore, be said that the wrong copy induced him to spend money in making the purchase.

2. On 24th September he sued not only Mt. Jhagri but the others whose names appeared in the records for a declaration that the others were not tenants of the land. This suit was brought for a declaration u/s 123, Tenancy Act of 1926. His suit was dismissed on the ground that Mt. Jhagri was not a fixed-rate tenant and had no right of transfer. The incorrect copy was filed by the complainant in the suit which he filed on 24th September.

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