Skip to content


Jeoni Vs. Bhagwan Sahai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1875)ILR1All541
AppellantJeoni
RespondentBhagwan Sahai and anr.
Excerpt:
.....which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 1. the first plea would fail if he hold that the suit should have been brought within one year from the date of the order passed under section 246 of act viii of 1859. for it is the order then made which, if contested at all, must be contested within one year, and after that date cannot be questioned......from the date of the order passed under section 246 of act viii of 1859. for it is the order then made which, if contested at all, must be contested within one year, and after that date cannot be questioned. the full bench decision of this court in badri prasad v. muhammad yusuf i.l.r. 1 all. 381 has conclusively settled this point. whether the decree was settled after the order was made has no bearing on the point at issue. having examined the record of this case and the order made under section 246, act viii of 1859, there cannot be a doubt that the plaintiff was, and now is, entirely bound by that order, and that she cannot now re-assert her title to the house, which was not allowed as against the judgment-debtor and decree made in 1874.
Judgment:

Spankie, J.

1. The first plea would fail if he hold that the suit should have been brought within one year from the date of the order passed under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859. For it is the order then made which, if contested at all, must be contested within one year, and after that date cannot be questioned. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Badri Prasad v. Muhammad Yusuf I.L.R. 1 All. 381 has conclusively settled this point. Whether the decree was settled after the order was made has no bearing on the point at issue. Having examined the record of this case and the order made under Section 246, Act VIII of 1859, there cannot be a doubt that the plaintiff was, and now is, entirely bound by that order, and that she cannot now re-assert her title to the house, which was not allowed as against the judgment-debtor and decree made in 1874.


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