that their common object was by criminal force to enforce a right or supposed right of possession in respect of plot ... common objects was to assault. In the circumstances it undoubtedly was so. If nothing more, it became a common object the moment the party
plot No. 736 and the northern portion is plot no. 737. It is in the evidence of D. W. 1, that plot ... plot No. 736 covering a length of 60 feet, from the extreme extremity of that plot and that the western portion of the plot
complainant and the petitioners own adjoining plots of land, namely, plot NOS. 1983 and 1932 respectively; that Plot No. 1933 belongs to the complainant ... there is a row of three rooms with a common roof on that plot that plot No. 1932 belongs to the petitioners, and that
acted in pursuance of the common intention to kill and various acts were done as a result of that common intention ... Their Lordships do not rule out the possibility of a common intention developing in the course of events though it might not have been present
Province of Madras', I. L. B. (1949) Mad. 675. The English common law rule that the bed of non-tidal rivers, even though they ... river should be navigable at that part of it where the disputed plots are situated. (3) The ownership of the bed of the river would
order allowing amendment as follows:
"The parties were labouring under a common mistake as to the property in dispute. The mistake was discovered ... application for amendment of the property in dispute by substitution of other plots. I think that the amendment can be allowed under Section 153, Civil
exproprietary tenant and the sir holders were not joint holders of a common estate, and there is no survivorship in the case of persons holding ... have taken a different view. It was held that:
"Where separate plots of joint sir have been treated by the co-sharers as their
Singh & Chandrapal Singh had executed a perpetual lease of five agricultural plots Nos. 1776, 1777, 1872/1, 1873/1 & 2123, which were included ... joint family but that the parties were co-owners as tenants in common, then it was executed by one of the co-owners
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950
Equivalent
Province Of Bombay vs Kusaldas S. Advani And Others on 15 September, 1950
Equivalent citations
