Skip to content


Judawan Prasad Vs. Shatrughan Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)26BOMLR568
AppellantJudawan Prasad
RespondentShatrughan Prasad
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of privy council in deciding questions of fact.;in a suit for recovery of possession of certain ancestral property, the defendant contended that he was the adopted son of the deceased owner. the trial judge, on the issue of adoption, upon a review of the evidence, found for the plaintiff, but these findings were reversed by the court of the judicial commissioner on appeal.;by the privy council that the court of the judicial commissioner was substantially correct in its review of the evidence upon the question of the fact of adoption; judgment of that court accordingly affirmed.;in such questions of fact, their lordships simply announce the decision of the board, without discussing in detail the views of the inferior courts. - .....of the court of the judicial commissioner of the central provinces, reversing a decree of the district judge at raipur, which had dismissed the suit.2. there are two questions in the appeal. one has reference to the adoption of a child who has been for twenty-four years in possession, since the alleged date of adoption, of a certain village property. the other point in the appeal is one of limitation.3. their lordships, however, have come to a certain conclusion on the first of these two points, which renders it unnecessary to deal with the second.4. on a question of fact of this kind, their lordships simply announce the decision of the board, which is to the effect that they entirely agree in substance with the decree pronounced by the court of the judicial commissioner. that.....
Judgment:

Shaw, J.

1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, reversing a decree of the District Judge at Raipur, which had dismissed the suit.

2. There are two questions in the appeal. One has reference to the adoption of a child who has been for twenty-four years in possession, since the alleged date of adoption, of a certain village property. The other point in the appeal is one of limitation.

3. Their Lordships, however, have come to a certain conclusion on the first of these two points, which renders it unnecessary to deal with the second.

4. On a question of fact of this kind, their Lordships simply announce the decision of the Board, which is to the effect that they entirely agree in substance with the decree pronounced by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. That decree, while reversing the decree of the District Judge, contains certain observations with regard to a judicial officer which, in their Lordships' opinion, were, from anything appearing in the record, unnecessary, and which do not add to the strength of the judgment. That judgment, however, thus reversing the decree of the District Judge, is, in their Lordships' opinion, substantially correct as a review of the evidence upon the question of fact. Their Lordships have had nothing before them which, in their view, would justify a reversal of the decree passed in accordance with the judgment; which will accordingly stand, and the costs of the appeal will fall upon the appellant. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty in that sense.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //