Skip to main content

Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others

Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others Subject matter of the case - What is the meaning of "Any other sufficient cause" and principle "of Ejusdem Generis" under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. ? Facts of the case -  1. On 22nd October, 1912 one Mr. Chhajju Ram purchased certain lands of villages Kasgar and Jammi Kera from Mrs. Forbes for Rs. 42,000/- Mr. Chhajju Ram also took the possession of the above properties after the execution of the sale deed in his favour. 2. Neki Ram and others filed a suit against Chhajju Ram alleging that the execution of the above sale deed in favour of the defendant is collusive hence the same be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be given the possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of their preemptions. It was argued by the plaintiffs that :- i. The plaintiffs are Gaur Brahmins by caste and are the occupancy tenants of village Kasgar and were the members of Agriculture Tribes within the meaning...
Post a Comment

Contact Us


Contact Us

If you have any query regrading Site, Guest post, Advertisement and any other issue, please feel free to contact.
contactme3578@gmail.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others

Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki Ram & Others Subject matter of the case - What is the meaning of "Any other sufficient cause" and principle "of Ejusdem Generis" under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. ? Facts of the case -  1. On 22nd October, 1912 one Mr. Chhajju Ram purchased certain lands of villages Kasgar and Jammi Kera from Mrs. Forbes for Rs. 42,000/- Mr. Chhajju Ram also took the possession of the above properties after the execution of the sale deed in his favour. 2. Neki Ram and others filed a suit against Chhajju Ram alleging that the execution of the above sale deed in favour of the defendant is collusive hence the same be declared null and void and the plaintiffs be given the possession of the said land on payment of Rs. 15,000/- on the basis of their preemptions. It was argued by the plaintiffs that :- i. The plaintiffs are Gaur Brahmins by caste and are the occupancy tenants of village Kasgar and were the members of Agriculture Tribes within the meaning...
Post a Comment
Read more

Article 13 of the Indian constitution

Article 13 of the Indian constitution|| Doctrine of Severability|| Doctrine of Eclipse When we were making our constitution, we already had a lot of nations as example, which adopted democratic and humanitarian concept. So our founding fathers endeavoured to formulate something which reflects multiple things like rights of minority, principle of UDHR, our struggle for independence and what not. Therefore, while making the constitution,part III was discussed for 38 days. Part III exists with the objective of ; freedoms should be protected against state’s arbitrary invasion. So this means that state’s actions should be judged on the basis of their impact; freedoms of the people. This entire concept is your Article 13. Basically Article 13 deals with 4 principles relating to Fundamental Rights. First thing that you should have a clarity about what is Fundamental Rights, since when the fundament right have existed. Fundamental Rights have existed since the time our present...
Post a Comment
Read more

Territorial Jurisdiction U/S. 21, 38, 47 of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)

Hira Lal Patni Vs. Shri Kali Nath Subject matter of the case - Whether the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction U/S. 21, 38 & 47 C.P.C., goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the court? Whether the validity of a decree can be challenged on that ground in execution proceedings? Facts of the case :- 1. Hira Lal Patni wanted to purchase the shares of "John Mill" of Agra. He took the services of Mr. Kali Nath for this purpose. 2. On 10th July, 1946 with the aid of Mr. Kali Nath, Hira Lal Patni along with one another purchased the entire interest of one Major A.U. Khan. 3. After seeking the permission U/S. 12 of Letters Patent Act, Mr. Kali Nath filed a suit No. 3718.47 against Hira Lal Patni in Bombay High Court for the recovery of his commission amounting to one Lakh Rupees. 4. High Court referred the dispute to an arbitrator namely Mr. W.E. Pereira, who was the administrator of the property of the deceased Major A.U. John. 5. The defendant cont...
Post a Comment
Read more