Allahabad Court July 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Baldeo Prasad and anr. Vs. the Collector of Pilibhit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All13
Henry Richards, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed to recover the sum of Rs. 1,990-2-0. As originally framed this sum was said to be the amount of a promissory note, dated the 20th of November, 1909, together with interest thereon. The maker of the promissory note was one Pohkar Singh. The Collector of Pilibhit was sued as manager of the estate of Pohkar Singh in charge of the Court of Wards. The defence was that the promissory note was made after the estate had been taken over by the Court of Wards. On this defence being raised the plaintiffs applied for an amendment of their plaint, so as to enable them to fall back on a previous promissory note, dated the 15th of November, 1907. The court of first instance allowed the amendment and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The amendment as made was, to say the least of it, inartistic.2. The defendant objected to the amendment and in his memorandum of appeal a ground was taken that the amendmen...
Chandarbhan Vs. Har Gopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All424(2); 25Ind.Cas.183
Sunder Lal, J.1. Ono Hargopal was the owner of the property in suit, which on 6th February 1906 he conveyed to his wife and mother (the defendants Nos. 3 and 2) by way of family settlement. He was not indebted to any one at that time. The document was intended to make some provision for thorn. Ha had no other property left with him on that date.2. On 6th August 1933 the present plaintiff brought a suit against Hargopal claiming a sum of Rs. 260 on foot of a hundi bearing1 date 3rd January 1936. August 17th, 1906, was fixed for the hearing of the case, but on 13th August 1933 the defendant filed a confession of judgment on which a decree was duly made against him on 17th August 1906. In execution of this decree the property in suit was attached as the property of Hargopal, bat was released on objections taken by the defendants on 3rd July 1910. Hence the present suit by the decree-holder to obtain a declaration that the said conveyance was fraudulent and collusive, and that it was void ...
Sukh Kunwar Chandar Alias Sttkhmar Chandar and ors. Vs. Musammat Bhagw ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All265; 25Ind.Cas.233
1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. One Har Dayal was the owner of the property in suit in this case and he was separate from his brothers Har Gyan and Baldeo, in estate. Har Dayal died about 40 years ago leaving a widow Musammat Samai Kuar who succeeded him to the estate. Samai Kuar, died in May 1909 and Bhagwani Kuar, the daughter of Har Dayal, claims the property in suit as part of her father's estate. Her case is that on the death of her mother succession opened out to her and she is entitled to the property. It appears that soon after the death of Har Dayal, Samai Kuar entered into a marriage in the karoo form with Har Gyan. This was in the year 1872. The parties belong to the caste of Gujars among whom second marriage in the karoo form is permissible. The fact of the karao marriage is not disputed, but it is urged on behalf of the defendants that by the custom of the caste a widow entering into a karao form of marriage forfeits all interest in her former husb...
Gaya Prasad and ors. Vs. Musammat Lareti Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All552; 25Ind.Cas.821
Sunder Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought by the plaintiffs against; among other persons, the heirs and assigns of Ram Kumar.2. One Bhagirath was owner of 400 square yards of land. 100 square yards of land out of these were purchased in the name of Bhopal and Jodhu on the 20th January 1870. These persons were the tenants of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' case is that the names of these persons were entered in the sale certificate benami that the real purchasers were the plaintiffs and not Bhopal and Jodhu. They have died and their heirs have sold the land to defendants Nos. 1 to 3, who have begun to make certain constructions on the land. The present suit is for partition and for an injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from building on the land. They have urged that the suit is barred by Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the plaintiffs cannot maintain this suit against them who are claiming title under a purchase certified by...
Rajwanti Kunwari Vs. Doman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All418; 25Ind.Cas.182
Piggott, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained from the father of the defendant No.3. mortgage-deeds, on June the 12th, 1903, July the 2nd, 1905, and June the 14th, 1906, purporting to mortgage with possession certain tenant holdings. The holdings in question were occupancy holdings the transfer of which by way of mortgage is prohibited by law. The plaintiff, however, obtained possession under the said mortgages. He now comes into Court alleging that since the death of the original mortgagor his right to possession has been challenged, by the defendant and has been doubted in the Revenue Courts.2. The plaint as drafted avoids any express admission that the plaintiff has been dispossessed. The relief sought is described as a decree for maintenance of possession and there is an alternative prayer that if the Court considers the plaintiff is dispossessed in any way, he might be put in possession. As a further alternative relief the plaintiff also sought recovery of the principal and in...
Sudarshan Das Shastri Vs. Muncipal Board of Agra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All9
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. The court below framed an issue in the following terms.Is the plaintiff the owner and in possession of the lands in suit, or do the lands form part of the road belonging to the Board? If road, then what is its extent.2. The court below has found on this issue that the place on which the plaintiff alleged that hawkers were accustomed to sit was no part of the road, at least this is what we understand the finding to be. The court seems to have thought that the only part of the road which could be said to be the public road was the part that was actually metalled. In our opinion this is clearly wrong. We are unable from the maps, and from any information either party can give us, to ascertain with any accuracy the places in which the hawkers sit; but in our opinion all the ground, whether metalled or not, over which the public had a right of way, is just as much the public road as the metalled part. The court would be entitled to draw the inference th...
Gatstga DIn Sonar Vs. Jagat Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.198
Sunder Lal, J.1. The parties to this suit are residents of a village named Sanadra in the Gorakhpur District. Neither party has any zemindari right in the village, but both are residents occupying house sites in the village. The plaintiff owns a house in the village appertaining to which is a courtyard bearing No. 226 which has always been in his possession and occupation, and a strip of land bearing No. 205 is the passage or pathway to this house. The plaintiff's case is that he has no other passage or way for egress or ingress to his house. He alleges that the defendant has recently taken possession of the plaintiff's courtyard and has commenced to build a house on it. He has also blocked up the passage to the plaintiff's house by building a wall across, it. He sues for the possession of the land and the demolition of the constructions put upon it by the defendants. He also, prays for the demolition of the Avail put up on plot No. 205, so as to permit the plaintiff to have access to ...
Dal Singh and ors. Vs. Thaman Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All7
Henry Richard, C.J. and Tudball, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Kewal Singh to recover possession of certain immovable property comprising an occupancy holding, The occupancy holding belonged at one time to Puhap Singh. Puhap Singh had a son Hansi and a son Kewal, the plaintiff. On the death of Puhap Singh, Hansi became the occupancy tenant. Kewal had been adopted into another family. On the death of Hansi the defendant Thamman Singh entered into possession. Kewal Singh then brought the present suit alleging that he was entitled under Section 22(c) of the Tenancy Act to the occupancy holding. He also alleged that Thamman Singh was illegitimate.2. The court of first instance dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance and decreed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the present appeal.3. In our opinion the decree of the court of first instance is correct and must be restored. Unless Kewal Singh can be said to be the bro...
Bhawani Das and ors. Vs. Babu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1914
Reported in: AIR1914All361; 25Ind.Cas.273
Sunder Lal, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for the recovery of a sum of Its. 312 which the plaintiffs claimed to recover either from Thakoor Sheopal Singh or from Babu Lal. The plaintiffs were mortgagees of the property in suit. According to their case Babu Lal had received the amount now claimed on account of rent of the mortgaged property for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defence of Babu Lal was that he had been collecting rent on behalf of his master, Sheopal Singh, and that he was not personally responsible for the rent so collected which was handed over to his principal. The Court of first instance held that Babu Lal was the lessee on behalf of the plaintiffs and that he was really responsible for the rent. It gave a decree against Babu Lal and exempted Sheopal Singh. Babu Lal appealed against the decree of the Court below. The plaintiffs preferred no appeal against the decree in so far as it dismissed the claim against Sheopal Singh. On appeal the Court below has found t...
Habibullah A. D. and ors. Vs. Kaltan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.169
1. This suit arises under the following circumstances. The defendants are zemindars of the village. On July 27th, 1877. their ancestors gave a plot of land, 5 bighas 13 biswas in area, to Devi Das and Man Singh for the purpose of planting a grove. The condition was that the vendees were to remain in possession of these plots, plant a grove and pay half the income by way of rent to the zemindars. Devi Das and Man Singh accordingly proceeded to plant the grove in question. They constructed a pucoa well and a piyaoo (place where' water for drinking is kept and supplied) and built a boundary-wall, and remained in possession of the land during their life-time. Some of the zemindars transferred a portion of their zemindari right in this plot by way of two mortgages to Davi Das and Man Singh. Devi Das and Man Singh, therefore, are now mortgagee of a portion of this grove. Devi Das died eleven years ago and man Singh died about nine years before thesuit. They were succeeded by their widows,bot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »