https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292025 Order 41 Rule 33 CPC was explained as wide but not available to a respondent, without appeal or cross-objection, to attack a finding in a way that would undermine the decree under challenge. The agreement governing the hat lands was construed as a whole, and the original half-share arrangement was treated as having rested on substantially equal acreage of the two tarafs. Because part of the land had been acquired and the instrument did not provide for that contingency, the profit shares were adjusted to reflect the land remaining in the hat rather than preserve the original equal division. The stated result was a 2/5ths share for the plaintiffs and 3/5ths for the defendants. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 1938 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292025 Order 41 Rule 33 CPC was explained as wide but not available to a respondent, without appeal or cross-objection, to attack a finding in a way that would undermine the decree under challenge. The agreement governing the hat lands was construed as a whole, and the original half-share arrangement was treated as having rested on substantially equal acreage of the two tarafs. Because part of the land had been acquired and the instrument did not provide for that contingency, the profit shares were adjusted to reflect the land remaining in the hat rather than preserve the original equal division. The stated result was a 2/5ths share for the plaintiffs and 3/5ths for the defendants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Dec 1938 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292025