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.

Mukhtara Vs. Sardara

Mukhtara vs Sardara

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 10, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473832

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Order XLI, Rules 25, 26, 31 - Issues referred of lower Court--Return received--No objection made within lime--Duty of Appellate Court. - - After the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukhtara

Respondent

Sardara

Legal References

Cases Referred
Mumtaz Begam v. Fateh Husain
Reported In
AIR1923All417; 71Ind.Cas.444

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xli, rules 25, 26, 31 - issues referred of lower court--return received--no objection made within lime--duty of appellate court. - - after the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten days' time allowed.gokul prasad, j.1. this is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house against the defendant as a trespasser. the suit was decreed by the court of first instance. the defendant went up in appeal and the learned judge of the lower appellate court referred certain issues for trial to the court of first instance. after the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten days' time allowed. the learned district judge thereupon without considering the findings on the merits decided the appeal considering those findings to be final, and dismissed the appeal. the defendant comes here in second appeal and says that this action of the learned district judge was not warranted by law, and that he ought to have himself considered whether the findings were good or bad findings and should have then decided the case. in support of this contention the case of mumtaz begam v. fateh husain 6 a. 391 : a.w.n. (1884) 129 : 4 ind.dec. (n.s.) 61 has been referred to me. this contention is fully borne out by the ruling relied upon and the learned district judge ought to have himself considered the correctness or otherwise of the findings returned by the munsif before deciding the appeal. i, therefore, refer the following issue to the lower appellate court for decision:(sic) was the house in dispute appurtenant to shibba's holding or not, and did it revert to the zemindar on his dying issueless?2. the court below will decide the issue on the evidence already on the record and return its finding to this court at an early date. on receipt of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.

Full Judgment

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a house against the defendant as a trespasser. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. The defendant went up in appeal and the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court referred certain issues for trial to the Court of first instance. After the findings which were against the defendant had been received the defendant failed to prefer objections to the findings within ten days' time allowed. The learned District Judge thereupon without considering the findings on the merits decided the appeal considering those findings to be final, and dismissed the appeal. The defendant comes here in second appeal and says that this action of the learned District Judge was not warranted by law, and that he ought to have himself considered whether the findings were good or bad findings and should have then decided the case. In support of this contention the case of Mumtaz Begam v. Fateh Husain 6 A. 391 : A.W.N. (1884) 129 : 4 Ind.Dec. (N.S.) 61 has been referred to me. This contention is fully borne out by the ruling relied upon and the learned District Judge ought to have himself considered the correctness or otherwise of the findings returned by the Munsif before deciding the appeal. I, therefore, refer the following issue to the lower Appellate Court for decision:

(sic) Was the house in dispute appurtenant to Shibba's holding or not, and did it revert to the zemindar on his dying issueless?

2. The Court below will decide the issue on the evidence already on the record and return its finding to this Court at an early date. On receipt of the finding the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial