SHIVDAYAL Vs. RAMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant has been given the decree for which he prayed, which is an unconditional decree for possession of the house he bought from Janki Bai, a Brahmin widow; but he has been driven to appeal against certain incidental and really irrelevant findings given in the Courts below. The finding as to the nature of Janki Bai's ownership of the property is no part of the basis of the decree and in the future litigation that is sure to arise, if things are left as they are, it would certainly not be binding on the parties to this suit, though there would be much discussion and waste of time in that litigation over the question whether it is binding or not. The parties have, however, agreed that the question of the nature of Janki Bai's ownership of the house under her father's will shall be decided now, and that the decision shall be final and binding on them both.

(2.) THE inverted method of approaching question of this kind, which is perhaps more common than any other in our Courts, has been followed in the lower appellate Court in this case. There is, first of all, a discussion of all the questions of law that may possibly arise in the case, when the facts come to be looked at, with a statement of all the principles to be found in published judgments of other Courts on which these questions are to be decided. After that comes an application of these principles to the facts which are only incidentally mentioned in the course of the discussion.

(3.) THE word translated 'owner" is "malik." and "full owner" represents malik kamil. "