-
iDraf
-
Issue
-
Arguments Of Respondent
Siddik Mahomed Shah
v.
Mt. Saran And Ors
(Privy Council)
| 25-10-1929
Viscount Dunedin, J.
1. This is a hope-loss appeal. A certain Hote Khan is alleged by the appellant, who is in possession of certain lands which belonged to Hote Khan to have given these lands to him. That story is not accepted, and there are concurrent findings as to the fact by both Courts. After Hote Khans death there was a transference of the lands in question by mutation of names effected upon the application of Hote Khans widow. The Judicial Commissioners think it very probable that Hote Khans widow being an ignorant person and with no one to help her, transferred the lands in that way in order that her spiritual adviser might hold them as trustee. The spiritual adviser, who is the appellant wishes to keep them first upon the ground already specified which their Lordships have already disposed of and, secondly upon the ground that it was a gift made by the widow herself but that claim was never made in the defence presented and the learned Judicial Commissioners there fore, very truly find that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. The result is that their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. As the respondents have not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.
1. This is a hope-loss appeal. A certain Hote Khan is alleged by the appellant, who is in possession of certain lands which belonged to Hote Khan to have given these lands to him. That story is not accepted, and there are concurrent findings as to the fact by both Courts. After Hote Khans death there was a transference of the lands in question by mutation of names effected upon the application of Hote Khans widow. The Judicial Commissioners think it very probable that Hote Khans widow being an ignorant person and with no one to help her, transferred the lands in that way in order that her spiritual adviser might hold them as trustee. The spiritual adviser, who is the appellant wishes to keep them first upon the ground already specified which their Lordships have already disposed of and, secondly upon the ground that it was a gift made by the widow herself but that claim was never made in the defence presented and the learned Judicial Commissioners there fore, very truly find that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put forward. The result is that their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. As the respondents have not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.
Advocates List
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
VISCOUNT DUNEDIN
J.
Eq Citation
AIR 1930 PC 57
LQ/PC/1929/93
HeadNote
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
