Allahabad Court December 1918 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.
Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Dulam Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All338; 50Ind.Cas.372
1. The essential facts governing the decision of this appeal may be stated as follows: Two sisters, Tulsha Kuar and Dulam Kuar, had succeeded to the possession of their father's estate. They held the same, of course, with the limited estate of Hindu women, and subject to a right of survivorship as between themselves. While they were in possession Musammat Tulsha Kuar made a certain payment out of the income of the estate in her hands, the object of this payment being to save certain property from being sold up on account of art ears of Government revenue due from her nephews, the sons of Musammat Dulam Kuar, and from certain cousins of the said nephews. The payment so made by her she was entitled to recover from the persons for whose benefit she made it. She brought a suit with that object and obtained a decree. It would seem that she also took out execution of that decree on one or more occasions before her death, but she died while the decree was still unsatisfied. The question now i...
Sheobaran Singh Vs. Bhagwan Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All433; (1919)ILR61All286; 50Ind.Cas.953
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In this case the plaintiff purchased at auction the entire twenty biswas of a certain mahal. On endeavouring to take possession of the property he was resisted by the three defendants, who claimed to be the joint owners of a share of three biswas and odd in the said mahal. The plaintiff was driven to bring a suit for possession in respect of this share. The suit was decreed in his favour as long ago as the 29th of June, 1911, and eventually that decision was affirmed in appeal up to this Court. In that suit the plaintiff, for some reason or other, had omitted to claim mesne profits, and it is not denied that by reason of this omission he can get no mesne profits from the defendants on account of his dispossession up to the date of the institution of the said suit. In the present suit, filed on the 31st of July, 1913, the plaintiff claimed mesne profits on account of the share of three biswas and odd from the date of the institution of his former suit up to the ...
Chunni Lal Vs. Biri Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All426(1); (1919)ILR61All346
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed possession of certain plots of land. It appears that more than twelve years before the institution of the suit the plaintiff or his predecessors in title obtained a simple money decree against the defendants or their predecessors in title. In execution of this decree the plots of land were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder. It has been found that the plots of land formed a portion of the ex-proprietary holding of the judgment-debtor, and both the courts below have held, and we agree with them, that, having regard to the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the interest of the ex-proprietary tenant could not be sold in execution of the decree. It is then said that the plaintiff is at least entitled to the trees. From the description of the plots of land or some of them it would appear that trees were growing on the plots of land, but it will be clearly se...
Dilawar and ors. Vs. NaraIn Das and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All250
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We think that the view taken by the court below was correct. In the first place we consider that under the circumstances the mortgage of 1903 was proved. We think that execution of the mortgage having been proved in the manner prescribed by Section 71 of the Evidence Act, and on the face of it, it appearing to have been executed in the presence of more than one person, it was a good mortgage. The next contention was that, the mortgage being a usufructuary mortgage in form, the plaintiff could not recover the money. The mortgage was in a peculiar form and combined a simple mortgage with a usufructuary mortgage. As a matter of fact when the mortgage was made possession could not be delivered because possession was already in the hands of a prior mortgagee, who is the appellant here and was the contesting defendant in the court below. Furthermore, the mortgagee himself purchased the equity of redemption and remained in possession,...
Musammat Kumari Vs. Sundar Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All283
Henry Richards, Kt., C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application made in First Appeal No. 228 of 1916. The Court is asked to make a declaration that the suit has abated. The circumstances as stated by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant are as follows:The title of the plaintiff in the suit was that the property was the stridhan of her step-mother, Musammat Moti Rani, and that she inherited the property upon the death of this lady. She consequently asked for a declaration of her title and possession. The defendant preferred this appeal. During its pendency the sole plaintiff died. The appellant now contends that even on the assumption that the deceased plaintiff inherited the property from her step-mother, who held it as stridhan, upon the death of the plaintiff the property passes to the next heirs of Musammat Moti Rani's husband, the plaintiff only having a life-interest. In support of this contention he refers to the Privy Council ruling in Sheo Shankar L...
NaraIn Das Vs. Dilawar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All448; 52Ind.Cas.880
1. We think that the view taken by the Court below was correct. In the first place, we consider that under the circumstances the mortgage of 1903 was proved. We think that execution of the mortgage having been proved in the manner prescribed by Section 71 of the Evidence Act, and on the face of it, it appearing to have been executed in the presence of more than one person, it was a good mortgage. The next contention was, that the mortgage being a usufructuary mortgage in form, the plaintiff could not recover the money. The mortgage was in a peculiar form and combined a simple mortgage with a usufructuary mortgage. As a matter of fact when the mortgage was made, possession could not be delivered because possession was already in the hands of a prior mortgagee, who is the appellant here and was the contesting defendant in the Court below. Farther-more the mortgagee himself purchased the equity of redemption and remained in possession, keeping the plaintiff out of possession. With regard ...
Sarju and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All220; 49Ind.Cas.654
Piggott, J.1. These are applications of two persons, Sarju and Lallu, who have been required to furnish security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. They were brought before a Magistrate along with four other persons, the case for the prosecution being that these six men were individually habitual thieves and housebreakers and also were associated together in the matter under enquiry. The judgment of the trying Magistrate and the appellate judgment of the learned District Magistrate show that the Police had beyond question very substantial reasons for the action taken by them. The six men had been arrested together under circumstances of grave suspicion and the circumstances of their arrest constituted in themselves evidence of association. As against four out of the six men there was overwhelming evidence of their being habitual criminals as alleged by the prosecution. Such being the case, the evidence of habitual association on the part of Lallu and Sarju with these cri...
Sundar Pande and ors. Vs. Musammat Kumari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All355; 50Ind.Cas.935
1. This is an application made in First Appeal No. 228 of 1916. The Court is asked to make a declaration that the suit has abated. The circumstances as stated by the learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant are as follows: The title of the plaintiff in the suit was that the property was the Stridhan of her step-mother, Musammat Moti Rani, and that she inherited the property upon the death of this lady. She consequently asked for a declaration of her title and possession. The defendant preferred this appeal. During its pendency the sole plaintiff died. The appellant now contends that even on the assumption that the deceased plaintiff inherited the property from her step-mother, who held it as Stridhan, upon the death of the plaintiff the property passes to the next heirs of Musammat Moti Rani's husband, the plaintiff only having a life-interest. In support pf this contention he refers to the Privy Council ruling in Sheo Shanker Lal v. Debi Sahai 25 A. 468 : 13 M.L.J. 830 (P.C.) : 5 B...
Lalji Singh and ors. Vs. Muhammad Ehtisham Ali and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR61All226
Tudball, J.1. Revisions Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 are connected and arise out of six suits for rent which were brought in the court of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. In No. 43 the applicant for revision here, Muhammad Ehtisham Ali, was an added defendant to the suit for rent brought by Lalji Singh and others against an agricultural tenant. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover half of the rent from the tenant. The tenant pleaded that he had paid the whole of his rent to Ehtisham Ali. On the plaintiffs' request Ehtisham Ali was made a defendant, and he pleaded that he was the sole proprietor and entitled to the whole of the rent. Thereupon the Assistant Collector, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 199 of the Tenancy Act, directed Ehtisham Ali to institute within three months a suit in the Civil Court for the determination of the question of proprietary title which was raised. In the other five suits Ehtisham Ali was himself the plaintiff, and ...
Mohammad Ehtisham Ali Vs. Lalji Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919All146; 49Ind.Cas.362
Tudball, J.1. Revisions Nos, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 are connected and arise out of six suits for rent which were brought in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. In No. 43 the applicant for revision here, Mohammad Ehtisham Ali, was an added defendant to the suit for, rent brought by Lalji Singh and others against an agricultural tenant. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to recover half of the rent from the tenant. The tenant pleaded that he had paid the whole of his rent to Ehtisham Ali. On the plaintiffs' request Ehtisham Ali was made a defendant and he pleaded that he was the sole proprietor and entitled to the whole of the rent. Thereupon the Assistant Collector, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 199 of the Tenancy Act, directed Ehtisham Ali to institute within three months a suit in the Civil Court for the determination of the question of proprietary title which was raised. In the other five suits Ehtisham Ali was himself the plaintiff and i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »