AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 87 words1.
We follow Balasubramania Chetti v. Swarnammal 21 Ind. Cas. 32 : 25 M.L.J. 367 with the reasoning in which we respectfully concur, in
preference to Safdar Ali v. Kishun Lal 7 Ind. Cas. 241. The decision in the latter, moreover, appears to be irreconcilable with that of Hari Charan
Ghosh v. Manmatha Nath Sen 18 C.W.N. 343. The fact, therefore, that petitioner applied for execution in 1911 without making his present claim
for mesne profits is not material. The appeal against order is dismissed with costs.