Allahabad Court July 1915 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.
Kallu and ors. Vs. Drigpal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR37All660
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage made in the year 1843. The facts are a little complicated, but it is unnecessary to state them in, detail for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. It appears that in the years 1878 and 1879 persons in whom the mortgagee rights were then vested made transfers in favour of certain persons who are now represented by the appellants. In these transfers words are used descriptive of the interest transferred' which would be appropriate if the transferor was absolute owner and not merely mortgagee. On the other hand, the words are not altogether inappropriate as descriptive of the right of a mortgagee in possession. The lower appellate court has found, in. concurrence with the court of first instance, that the actual interest which the transferors had at the date of the transfers' was that of mortgagees in possession. It has also found, (and, given good reasons for its findings) t...
Dirgpal Singh and anr. Vs. Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All425; 30Ind.Cas.956
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to redeem a mortgage made in the year 1843. The facts are a little complicated, but it is unnecessary to state them in detail for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. It appears that in the years 1878 and 1879 persons in whom the mortgagee rights were then vested made transfers in favour of certain persons who are now represented by the appellants. In these transfers words are used descriptive of the interest transferred which would be appropriate if the transferor was absolute owner and not merely mortgagee. On the other hand, the words are not altogether inappropriate as descriptive of the right of a mortgagee in possession. The lower Appellate Court has found in concurrence with the Court of first instance that the actual interest which the transferors had at the date of the transfers was that of mortgagees in possession. It has also found (and given good reasons for its findings) that the transferees knew what the interest of the transfero...
Puran Mal Vs. Tarif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.2
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by an alleged reversioner against the transferors of a deceased Hindu widow. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree and decreed the plaintiffs' claim.2. The widow was one Musammat Hukmo, She made an alienation of the whole property as far back as the year 1888 in favour of one Shibba. Shibbaon the 16th of May 1896 transferred part of the property so alienated to him to the defendant Puran Mal. The Court of first instance found that Musammat Hukmo had died some 18 years before the institution of the suit, giving some what cogent reasons for its finding. the lower Appellate Court found the utmost difficulty in believing the plaintiffs' story as to the date of the death of Musammat Hukmo. It appears, however, that when the present suit was first instituted, in addition to Pnran Mal the two daughters-in-law of Shibba were made parties. The plaintiffs in their plant had alleged tha...
Natha Mal Vs. Roshan Lala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All429; 30Ind.Cas.48
Rafique, J.1. The defendant-appellant was the owner of half the khewat No. 2. In execution of a decree against him his share was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs-respondents on the 20th of March 1908. In the sale certificate the description of the property sold is given which includes a beri grove. On the 8th of April 1914, the plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration that they were the owners and proprietors of the beri grove situate on plot No. 380 and for an injunction against the defendant-appellant rest raining him from interfering with their possession. They said that the defendant-appellant a short time before the institution of the suit had without any right wrongfully cut down two trees of the grove in question. They asked for Rs. 30 as damages for the price of the trees cut down by the defendant-appellant. The latter resisted the suit by denying the title of the plaintiffs-respondents to the grove. He said that it was ...
Nathu and anr. Vs. Musammat Gokalia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.215
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed possession of an occupancy holding. The holding at one time belonged to one Parbhu. He died before the present Tenancy Act came into force. He was succeeded by his widow, who remained in possession for a number of years and died after the present Act came into force. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be brothers and nephews of Parbhu, and two of them allege that they were joint in cultivation with Parbhu. The principal defendant is the daughter of Parbhu. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit and this decision was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.2. On behalf of the appellant the case of Musammat Sumari v. Jageshar 20 Ind. Cas. 7 has been cited; also an unreported decision in Second Appeal No. 1148 of 1914. On the other side the case of Dulari v. Mul Chand 5 Ind. Cas. 384 : 32 A. 314 : 7 A.L.J. 293 and also the case of Deoki Rai v. Parbati 23 Ind. Cas. 100 are cited. It seems to us that the...
Nathu and anr. Vs. Gokalia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All418; (1915)ILR37All658
Henry Riachards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed possession of an occupancy holding. The holding at one time belonged to one Parbhu. He died before the present Tenancy Act came into force. He was succeeded by his widow, who remained in possession for a number of years and died after the present Act came into force. The plaintiffs alleged themselves to be brothers and nephews of Parbhu, and two of them allege that they were joint in cultivation with Parbhu. The principal defendant is the daughter of Parbhu. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and this decision was affirmed by the lower appellate court.2. On behalf of the appellant the case of Musammat Sumari v. Jageshar (1913) 23 Indian Cases 7 has been cited; also an unreported decision in Second Appeal No. 1148 of 1914. On the other side, the case of Dulari v. Mul Chand (1910) I.L.R. 32 All. 314, and also the case of Deoki Rai v. Musammat Par...
Kedar and ors. Vs. Deo NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All489; (1915)ILR37All656
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed one biswa, which was alleged to be part of 4 biswas which constituted a fixed rate holding. The lower courts and this Court have dismissed the suit as being barred by Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and as having been concluded by the authority of the case of Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 348. Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act provides that 'no division of a holding or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof, made by the co-owners therein shall be binding on the land-holder unless it is made with his consent.' Clause (2) provides that no suit or other proceeding for the division of a holding or distribution of the rent thereof shall be entertained in any Civil or Revenue Court.' It is quite clear that all that Section 32 provides against is the splitting up of a holding or the distribution of the rent so as to bind the land-holders. Clause ...
Kedar and ors. Vs. Deo NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: 30Ind.Cas.89
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed 1 biswa, which was alleged to lie part of 4 biswas which constituted a fixed-rate holding. The lower Courts and this Court have dismissed the suit as being barred by Section 32 of the Tenancy Act and as having been concluded by the authority of the case of Ackhey Lal v. Janki Prasad 29 A. 66 : 3 A.L.J. 735 : A.W.N. (1906) 274. Section 32 of the Agra Tenancy Act provides that 'No division of a holding or distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof, made by the co-sharers therein, shall be binding on the landholder, unless it is made with his consent.' Clause 2 provides that 'No suit or other proceeding for the division of a holding or distribution of the rent thereof shall be entertained in any Civil or Revenue Court.' It is quite clear that all that Section 32 provides against is the splitting up of a holding or the distribution of the rent so as to bind the land-holders. Clause 2 does no more than enact that a ...
SatnaraIn Dube Vs. NaraIn Bargah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All341; 30Ind.Cas.830
George Knox, J.1. As the lower Appellate Court observed, the chief point to be decided is whether the plaintiff has proved delivery of possession in his favour. In support of the fact that he had received delivery of such possession he produced a duly certified copy of a dakhalnama. That copy was admitted and by order of the Court of first instance placed upon the record. Afterwards it was returned, but no reason appears upon the document as to why it should have been returned. The lower Appellate Court held that the copy of the dakhalnama was not admissible in evidence without proof of due execution. It accordingly refused to consider it. It further held that if it were admissible in evidence, the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving delivery of possession in his favour. The reason why it so held is that the dakhalnama contained only an admission of the plaintiff and no person is allowed to prove his own admission. As the plaintiff had not in the opinion of the lower Appellate Court...
Bhagwana and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1915
Reported in: AIR1915All426; 30Ind.Cas.911
George Knox, J.1. In the year 1896 one Kure was the proprietor of a certain share in Mauza Lohari, Pargana Kutana. Out of that share he mortgaged a portion consisting of a little over a bigha to the appellants. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage and Kure put the appellants in possession of the plots now in dispute. In the year 1907 a portion of Kuro's property covering an area of eight bighas eleven biswas was put up to auction in execution of a Civil Court decree and sold. The purchasers at auction were the respondents in the present case. The purchasers went to the Revenue Court and got mutation of names in their favour. They further had a rent of Rs. 44-14-2 fixed on the ex-proprietary holding of Kure. In the year 1912 the auction-purchasers proceeded further and obtained the ejectment of Kure from his entire ex-proprietary holding. Having done this, they next proceeded to sue for the ejectment of the present appellants, Bhagwana and Dewana, from the two plots Nos. 2570 and 25...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »