Allahabad Court March 1917 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.
Sham Rathi Rai Vs. Jaichha Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All300(2); (1917)ILR39All520
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts as found by the court below are as follows: Musammat Jaichba Kunwar is the widow of a separated Hindu; the second defendant Shivatahal Rai is the nearest reversioner at the present time and Musammai Jaichha Kunwar, on the 14th of April, 1914, transferred the whole of her husband's estate to Shivatahal Rai, the next reversioner, without any consideration whatsoever. The plaintiff appellant, whose suit has been dismissed by both the courts below, is a more remote reversioner, and his plea before us is that upon the facts found, the courts below ought to have declared that the deed of gift, dated the 14th of April, 1914, is not binding upon him after the death of the widow. We have no hesitation in saying that the suit has been properly dismissed by the court below. The rule of law which governs such a case as this is to be found in the judgement of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh (1907) I.L.R. ...
Ram Piari Vs. Nand Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All49; (1917)ILR39All636
Tudball and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a first appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the court below as barred by time. The suit arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff is the surviving daughter of one Munshi Shib Dayal. The latter's father or grandfather built a temple in Bareilly town and installed therein an idol. A priest was presumably appointed to preside at the worship in the temple.2. By a deed, dated the 27th of March, 1881, Shib Dayal dedicated to the idol one-half of his landed property to meet the expenses of the temple. In the deed he laid it down that he himself should be the sarbarahkar or manager of the property and that after his death, his heir and representative should succeed him as such. He directed that the aarbarahkar should manage the property and out of the profits thereof should supply funds to the pujari or priest. He further laid it down that the pujari should have no right in the property and that his powers were limited to spending the f...
Kallu Vs. Bhagirath Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All187(1); 40Ind.Cas.58
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a sum of money as being due upon accounts stated between them and the defendants and for money lent. The Court of First Instance dismissed the suit apparently upon the sole ground that the suit could not be maintained on the entries in the bahi kliata. It had framed three issues, namely (1) 'Is the amount claimed due to the plaintiffs on accounts and did the plaintiffs obtain defendant Kallu's finger impression on account 1968-1971 Sambat by way of farzi and without payment of consideration? (2) Is the whole claim or any part of the same barred by time (3). Are the defendants Nos. 2 to 7 entitled to be exempted or are they liable for the amount claimed?' Witnesses had been called by both parties and it is quite clear that the learned Additional District Judge on appeal was against the defendants on all the issues except the third. The main contention was as to whether or not the plaintiff's suit lay as alleged in the p...
Musammat Nandi Vs. Sarup Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.71
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a house. It appears that the house originally belonged to Tara Chand who died leaving two widows and no male issue. The name of one of the widows was Musammat Bakhti. The name of the other widow was Musammat Naudi, the plaintiff. These two ladies made a partition of Tara Chand's property as between themselves. The house in question fell to the lot of Bakhti. Bakhti executed a sale-deed of the house to the defendant on the 29th of April 1898. Bakhti has now died and the plaintiff has brought this suit to recover possession of the house. The case has come right up to this Court on a previous occasion but finally the Court of first instance found that there was no legal necessity for the sale made by Mussammat Bakhti. It appears that after the sale a considerable amount of money was spent in improvements on the house. In the Court of first instance there was an issue as to who had spent the money, and the Court found that it had been e...
Sham Rathi Rai Vs. Musammat Jaichha Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: 40Ind.Cas.117
1. This facts as found by the Court below are as follows:-- That Musammat Jaichha Kunwar is the widow of a separated Hindu; that the second defendant Shivatahal Rai is the nearest reversioner at the present time; and that Musammat Jaichha Kunwar had, on the 14th of April 1914, transferred the whole of her husband's estate to Shivatahal Rai, the next reversioner, without any consideration whatsoever. The plaintiff-appellant, whose suit has been dismissed by both the Counts below, is a more remote reversioner, and his plea before us is that upon the facts found, the Courts below ought to have declared that the deed of gift, dated the 14th of April 1914, is not binding upon him after the death of the widow. We have no hesitation in saying that the suit has been properly dis. missed by the Court below. The rule of law which governs such a case as this is to be found in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bajrangi Singh v. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh 30 A. 1 : 12 C.W.N. 74 ...
Kadleshar Ram Vs. Bhawan Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1917
Reported in: 42Ind.Cas.845
1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency matter. It appears that one Kali Charan was adjudicated an insolvent on the 29th of September 1916. The Court fixed the 17th of November 1916 as the date for the creditors to come in and prove their debts. On that date one Sheo Prasad, a creditor, applied that the Court might take proceedings under Section 43 to punish the insolvent for concealing same part of his property. He also asked that the Court might take action under Section 36 to set aside a sale-deed in respect of two houses made in favour of Kauleshar Ram by the insolvent. No order was passed on that date but on the 22nd of November the Court made an order Put upon the 1st of December. The applicant will produce his evidence. On the 1st of December a number of creditors including Kauleshar Ram came forward to prove their debts and on the same day a Receiver was appointed. The Court then summarily began to deal with the application of Sheo Prasad and set aside the transfer in favour...
Ram Kishore Misra Vs. Kalka Dichhit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All418; 39Ind.Cas.575
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a plot of ground. The facts as found are as follows. The parties had been co-sharers prior to a partition. On the partition this plot fell to the lot of the plaintiff. It appears that before partition the defendants (and perhaps other persons also) used to store manure and have a cattle trough (or cattle troughs) on this plot. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance. On second appeal to this Court a learned Judge dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is taken under the Letters Patent against the decree of the learned Judge of this Court, Both the lower Appellate Court and the learned Judge of this Court seem to have thought that the provisions of Section 118 of the Land Revenue Act was a bar to the suit for possession. That section is as follows: 'If, in making a partition, it is necessary to include in the portion al...
Mauladad Khan and ors. Vs. Abdul Sattar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All35; (1917)ILR39All426; 39Ind.Cas.666
Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to recover possession of certain property as the heirs of one Masammab Fiddo Begam. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the sons of one Munir Khan, paternal undo of Musammat Fiddo Begam. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs were the heirs of Musammat Fiddo. They did not specifically allege who the plaintiffs were, but they in general terms denied that they were the heirs. The plaintiffs in their plaint describe themselves as the 'sons of Munir Khan.' The defendants pleaded, as a. further defence, that Musammat Fiddo made a will on the 22nd of July, 1911, in favour of the first two defendants. The court of first instance held that the plaintiffs had not proved that they were the sons of Munir Khan, and further that the alleged will was genuine, and dismissed the suit. It seems to be admitted that if the plaintiffs are the sons of Munir Khan, they are the heirs of...
Rajendra Kishore Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1917
Reported in: AIR1917All312; (1917)ILR39All460
Henry Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed joint possession of a one-third share in certain muafi land. This share originally belonged to one Balwant who made a mortgage of it. A decree was obtained on foot of this mortgage on the 18th of April, 1899. The decree was made absolute on the 20th of November, 1899, and in execution of that decree the property was put up for sale on the 20th of March, 1900, and purchased by the plaintiffs father. On the 20th - of September, 1900, the plaintiff's father obtained formal possession under Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, which corresponds with Order XXI, Rule 96, of the present, Code. The present suit was instituted on the 18th of September, 1912. The defendant pleaded limitation. Both the courts below overruled this plea, but on second appeal to this Court a learned Judge overruled both the courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It is admitted ...
Lal Rajendra Kishore Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1917
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.745
P.C. Richards, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed joint possession of a one-third share in certain muafi land. This share originally belonged to one Balwant, who made a mortgage of it. A decree was obtained on foot of this mortgage on the 18th of April 1899. The decree was made absolute on the 20th of November 1899, and in execution of that decree the property was put up for sale on the 20th of March 1900 and purchased by the plaintiff's father. On the 20th September 1900 the plaintiff's father obtained formal possession under Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, which corresponds with Order XXI, Rule 96, of the present Code. The present suit was instituted on the 18th of September 1912. The defendant pleaded limitation. Both the Courts below overruled this plea, but on second appeal to this Court a learned Judge overruled both the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It is admitted that if time ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »