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.

Jamna Prasad and ors. Vs. Jagdeo and ors.

Jamna Prasad and ors. vs Jagdeo and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 10, 1908
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/461721

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
Contract

Case Summary

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

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 - Plaintiff's title not interfered with--Decree for possession or declaration not to be granted--Hindu Law--Mitakshara--Joint family property--Power of one sharer to dispose of his undivided share--Consent of other co-sharers--Benefit of family. -

Key legal issue
Contract

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jamna Prasad and ors.

Respondent

Jagdeo and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1Ind.Cas.83

Excerpt

specific relief act (i of 1877), section 42 - plaintiff's title not interfered with--decree for possession or declaration not to be granted--hindu law--mitakshara--joint family property--power of one sharer to dispose of his undivided share--consent of other co-sharers--benefit of family. - knox, j.1. on the finding at which the learned subordinate judge arrived, which finding has not been assailed, namely, that the share of the plaintiffs does not appear to have been included in the sale deed, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree which they asked for, namely, possession or to the declaratory decree which they obtained. the mere apprehension that complications may arise in future is not a proper ground for the granting of a declaratory decree having regard to the finding set out above. on that finding the appellants have been unnecessarily dragged into court. we allow the (sic) set aside the (sic) of this court and of the lower appellate court and restore that of the first court dismissing the suit. the appellants will have their costs in this court and in the lower appellate court.

Full Judgment

Knox, J.

1. On the finding at which the learned Subordinate Judge arrived, which finding has not been assailed, namely, that the share of the plaintiffs does not appear to have been included in the sale deed, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree which they asked for, namely, possession or to the declaratory decree which they obtained. The mere apprehension that complications may arise in future is not a proper ground for the granting of a declaratory decree having regard to the finding set out above. On that finding the appellants have been unnecessarily dragged into Court. We allow the (sic) set aside the (sic) of this Court and of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the first Court dismissing the suit. The appellants will have their costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial