Legal Teachings

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

State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram Subject matter of the case - What is the effect of abatement of appeal against the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 & 11 and Order 2 Rule 9 C.P.C.? Facts of the case :- 1. The government of Punjab acquired the land of Nathu Ram and Labhoo Ram on lease for defence purpose. 2. Nathu Ram and Labhoo Ram who were real brothers refused to accept the compensation offered by them by collector. They applied to the Punjab government for more compensation as provided by Rule 6 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Act, 1943. 3. The state government referred this dispute to an arbitrator under Rule 10 who submitted an award enhancing the rate of compensation to be given to both the brothers. 4. The state government filed an appeal against the award of the arbitrator in Punjab High Court. But during the pendency of the appeal one of the respondents Mr. Labhoo Ram died. The state government failed to bring his heirs on record within the prescribed time.

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