Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shazade Singh and anr. Vs. Nawab Syed Mohammad Mehdi Ali Khan Alias Nawab Achche Saheb

Shazade Singh and anr. vs Nawab Syed Mohammad Mehdi Ali Khan Alias Nawab Achche Saheb

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 29, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/461543

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Tenancy

Case Summary

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

Agra Tenancy Act (II of 1901, Local), 199, Sub-section 3 - Proprietary title decided by Revenue Court--Subsequent suit in Civil Court is barred by res--judicata. - - The matter now raised has been decided more than once by this Court in the same way and we are not disposed to take any other view which might well o...

Key legal issue
Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shazade Singh and anr.

Respondent

Nawab Syed Mohammad Mehdi Ali Khan Alias Nawab Achche Saheb

Legal References

Reported In
3Ind.Cas.954

Excerpt

agra tenancy act (ii of 1901, local), 199, sub-section 3 - proprietary title decided by revenue court--subsequent suit in civil court is barred by res--judicata. - - the matter now raised has been decided more than once by this court in the same way and we are not disposed to take any other view which might well open a door to fraud.1. we agree with the view taken by our learned brother in this case. the matter now raised has been decided more than once by this court in the same way and we are not disposed to take any other view which might well open a door to fraud. the appeal is. dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. We agree with the view taken by our learned brother in this case. The matter now raised has been decided more than once by this Court in the same way and we are not disposed to take any other view which might well open a door to fraud. The appeal is. dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial