Sri Girdhariji Maharaj vs Chote Lal And Ors. on 28 January, 1898
If along with this, we bear in mind the principle of law laid down in Sri Girdhariji Maharaj v. Chhote Lal ('98) 20 All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Nawab Col. Dr. Sir Hafiz Mohd. Ahmad Said ... vs Shiam Lal And Ors. on 30 August, 1944
248 and affirmed in the Pull Bench case in Hafiz Mohd. Ahmad Saeed Khan v. Shiam Lal ('44) 31 A.I.R. 1944 All. 177 that the prohibition against transfer has passed from the domain of a presumption into the domain of a rule of law, we feel no hesitation in holding that the evidence furnished by the wajibularz reinforced by such a rule of law, has not been outweighed by the evidence furnished by the deeds. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts.
Saiyid Faiyaz Ali vs Rekhab Das And Ors. on 11 December, 1920
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends, on the authority in Faiyaz Ali v. Rekhab Das ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 All. 46 that:
Syed Tajammul Husain vs Banwari Lal And Ors. on 19 June, 1925
12. He also relies upon Tajammul Husain v. Banwari Lal ('26) 13 A.I.R. 1926 All.
Balgobind, Since Deceased And Ors. vs Badri Prasad And Anr. on 10 May, 1923
Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Balgobind v. Badri Prasad ('23) 10 A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 70 have made this matter quite clear:
Narain Singh vs Net Ram And Ors. on 13 August, 1940
He also contends, on the authority of Narain Singh v. Net Ram ('40) 27 A.I.R. 1940 All. 535, that the finding of the lower appellate Court in favour of the respondents is a finding of fact and should not be disturbed in second appeal.
B. Mohd. Fazalur Rahman vs Nand Kishore Chaube And Ors. on 23 November, 1944
6. The case in Mohd. Fazalur Rahman v. Nand Kishore ('45) 32 A.I.R. 1945 All. 140, will therefore have no application. We shall proceed upon the assumption that the village is an agricultural village and the wajib-ul-arz must, unless outweighed by other evidence, hold the field. But the "other evidence" must be of a strong character, inasmuch as the probative value of the wajib-ul-arz has always been accepted to be very high.
Kanhaiya Lal vs Pt. Sheva Lal on 20 August, 1935
In 1935 Kanhaiya Lal v. Sheva Lal ('36) 23 A.I.R. 1936 All. 14, Sulaiman C.J. put the matter very clearly when he says:
Alif Khan vs Wajid Ali And Ors. on 27 October, 1932
It does not appear that the attention of the learned Judges was invited to Alif Khan v. Wajid Ali ('33) 20 A.I.R. 1933 All.
Nathwa And Anr. vs Raghubans Narain Singh And Anr. on 10 April, 1934
306, which is a clear authority for the proposition that "the question whether a prevailing practice has the essential attributes of a legally binding custom is a question of law" or to the case in Nathwa v. Raghubans Narain Singh ('34) 21 A.I.R. 1934 All. 890, which holds that:
1