Skip to content


Gokul Nath Vs. Baram Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All125
AppellantGokul Nath
RespondentBaram Nath
Excerpt:
- - 356. i accordingly hold that there is no ground for revision of the order complained of, and i dismiss this application......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.....
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.


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