Skip to content


Pancham Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub Khan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.558
AppellantPancham Lal and ors.
RespondentMuhammad Yaqub Khan and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115, order xxiii, rule 1 - suit dismissed on question of technically--appeal--withdrawal of suit--revision. - - it was really a question of technicality on which the suit of the plaintiffs failed because the power of attorney had not been filed......favour. the deed of gift was a registered document. but the learned munsif returned it because a marginal witness had not been called to prove it. the executant of the deed was a muhammaden and the registration was enough to give it validity. the document had been proved otherwise than by the examination of a marginal witness. a further question was whether the father who executed the document on behalf of his wife had an authority. there was a mutation of names in favour of the minors. it was really a question of technicality on which the suit of the plaintiffs failed because the power of attorney had not been filed. in the circumstances, i am not in a position to say-that the judge, in allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit, acted without jurisdiction. he may have committed.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. I do not think I should interfere in this case in revision. Certain minors brought a suit for recovery of a certain property on the strength of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by their mother; who is said to be still alive, in their favour. The deed of gift was a registered document. But the learned Munsif returned it because a marginal witness had not been called to prove it. The executant of the deed was a Muhammaden and the registration was enough to give it validity. The document had been proved otherwise than by the examination of a marginal witness. A further question was whether the father who executed the document on behalf of his wife had an authority. There was a mutation of names in favour of the minors. It was really a question of technicality on which the suit of the plaintiffs failed because the power of attorney had not been filed. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to say-that the Judge, in allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit, acted without jurisdiction. He may have committed an error of judgment and even of that I am not quite sure.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs which will include Counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.


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