Gokul Nath Vs. Baram Nath

Gokul Nath vs Baram Nath

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 04, 1926

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/472007

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/472007
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Jan 04, 1926
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

- - 356. I accordingly hold that there is no ground for revision of the order complained of, and I dismiss this application.

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gokul Nath

Respondent

Baram Nath

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1927All125

Excerpt

- - 356. i accordingly hold that there is no ground for revision of the order complained of, and i dismiss this application.daniels, j.1. in this case there is a concurrent finding of both the courts below that there was a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace and that neither party was in possession of the property. after hearing arguments at the time of presentation of this revision application i, therefore, decided that there was no ground for revision of this part of the order and that the only part which was open to attack was that which also directed attachment of the moveable property in the math which was the subject of dispute. on this part of the order a notice was issued.2. it appears to me, however, on consideration that the jewellery and other moveable property must be treated as appurtenant to the math and that the order was properly passed in respect of it. there is a patna case which is practically on all fours with the present casein which a similar view was taken. i refer to the case of bharat das v. ram charitar das [1917] 1 pat. l.j. 356. i accordingly hold that there is no ground for revision of the order complained of, and i dismiss this application.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. In this case there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that there was a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace and that neither party was in possession of the property. After hearing arguments at the time of presentation of this revision application I, therefore, decided that there was no ground for revision of this part of the order and that the only part which was open to attack was that which also directed attachment of the moveable property in the math which was the subject of dispute. On this part of the order a notice was issued.

2. It appears to me, however, on consideration that the jewellery and other moveable property must be treated as appurtenant to the math and that the order was properly passed in respect of it. There is a Patna case which is practically on all fours with the present casein which a similar view was taken. I refer to the case of Bharat Das v. Ram Charitar Das [1917] 1 Pat. L.J. 356. I accordingly hold that there is no ground for revision of the order complained of, and I dismiss this application.

Same Parties Gokul Nath vs Baram Nath Same Subject Property

Property