Niranjan Vs. Gajadhar

Niranjan vs Gajadhar

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 09, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/451628

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/451628
Court: Allahabad
Judge: George Knox and ;Aikman, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 09, 1908
Subject: Property;Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Act (Local) No. II of 1901 (Agra Tenancy Act), Section 177 - Question of proprietary title--Jurisdiction--Civil and Revenue Courts. -

Key legal issue: Property;Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Niranjan

Respondent

Gajadhar

Legal References

Reported In: (1908)ILR30All133

Excerpt

act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 177 - question of proprietary title--jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts. - george knox and aikman, jj.1. on the facts stated by the learned district judge of jaunpur we hold that no question of proprietary title was in issue in the court of first instance and that no such question is a matter in issue in this appeal. the learned district judge is right therefore in his view that be had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. the opposite view may perhaps derive some support from the observations made towards the conclusion of the judgment in chhitar singh v. rup singh weekly notes, 1906, p. 247, but, with all deference to the learned judge who decided the case, we are unable to agree with him in holding that, when there is a question whether one party or the other is the cultivator of specified land, a question of proprietary title arises. this is our answer to the reference.

Full Judgment

George Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1. On the facts stated by the learned District Judge of Jaunpur we hold that no question of proprietary title was in issue in the Court of first instance and that no such question is a matter in issue in this appeal. The learned District Judge is right therefore in his view that be had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The opposite view may perhaps derive some support from the observations made towards the conclusion of the judgment in Chhitar Singh v. Rup Singh Weekly Notes, 1906, p. 247, but, with all deference to the learned Judge who decided the case, we are unable to agree with him in holding that, when there is a question whether one party or the other is the cultivator of specified land, a question of proprietary title arises. This is our answer to the reference.

Same Parties Niranjan vs Gajadhar Same Subject Property;Tenancy Same Judge George Knox and ;Aikman, JJ.

Property;Tenancy