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

1897 Supreme(SC) 16

LORD HOBHOUSE, LORD MACNAGHTEN, SIR RICHARD COUCH
MOTI LAL – Appellant
Versus
KARRAB-UL-DIN – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant:Barrow & Rogers. Solicitor for respondent: J. F. Watkins.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the above Court (May 26, 1891) reversing a decree of the District Judge of Lucknow (March 24, 1890).

The suit was brought by Nawab Badshah Sahiba (the ex-Queen of Oudh) against the appellant for—(a) a declaration that the sale on October 22, 1884, of village Para, made in the suit of Mirza Muhammad Mohsin and others (Aghas representatives) against Muhammad Yusuf and Muhammad Nasim, was invalid, defective, and ineffectual as against Ha.kim Muhammad Masih (the plaintiffs vendor) and his heirs, and that the possession held by the defendant by virtue thereof was also illegal ;

(b) a declaration that, according to a decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, on November 4, 1885, in appeal in a suit brought by the said Hakim Muhammad Masih against the representatives of Mirza Haidar Husain (otherwise called Agha) and the said Muhammad Yusuf and Muhammad Nasim, the said village was the property of the said Hakim Muhammad Masih, and liable as such to attachment and sale in execution of a decree of the High Court of Calcutta, in favour of the said Nawab Badshah, dated December 22, 1881, and in execution of which decree the said village Para had been att





















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