Allahabad Court November 1920 Judgments
Rajjab Shah and ors. Vs. Tahir Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All106; (1921)ILR43All318; 60Ind.Cas.878
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The essential point for determination in these two connected second appeals is a simple one and seems to us almost too clear for argument. The plaintiffs came into court alleging in substance that they were entitled to a fractional share in certain property by reason of inheritance from one Pir or Pira Shah, They alleged that the defendants had wholly dispossessed them, were denying their title and keeping the entire profits of the property to themselves, They asked for possession by partition, that is to say, to have the fractional share, to which they claimed title, separated from the rest by metes and bounds and handed over to them. The defence set up raised a number of issues all of which were tried out by the court of first instance On many questions of fact the findings of that court were in favour of the plaintiffs, but on two points the decision went against them, The court held that the property in suit was not susceptible of division by metes and boun...
Tag this Judgment!Sant Prasad Vs. Bhawani Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All55(1); (1921)ILR43All403
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is taken to the effect that no appeal lies. Under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u), an appeal from an order remanding a case will only lie where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate court. We have, therefore, to determine whether in the case before us an appeal would lie from a decree by the lower appellate court. The suit was one of a Small Cause Court nature and in the suit itself no second appeal would have lain, by reason of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There has been a consensus of authority in three High Courts, vide Sri Bullov Bhattacharji v. Baburam Chattopadhya (1885) I.L.R. 11 Calc. 169, as also Shyama Charan Mitter v. Debendra Nath Mukerjee (1900) I.L.R. 27 Calc. 484, Mavula Ammal v. Mavula Maracoir (1906) I.L.R. 30 Mad. 212 and Narayan Parmanand v. Nagindas Bhaidas (1905) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 113, to the effect that a second appeal will not lie in an execution matter, if a second appeal would not have lain in t...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Singh and anr. Vs. Tunda Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.912
1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises there were five plaintiffs and two defendants. At a time when all the five plaintiffs were represented by a single Vakil, a compromise was arranged disposing of the suit on certain terms. This compromise was presented to the Court and verified before it by three plaintiffs in person, by both the defendants in person and by the Pleader, who held a power-of attorney on behalf of all the five plaintiffs jointly. At a later date, the two plaintiffs who had not personally signed or presented to the Court the petition of compromise, protested that they had not authorised the Pleader to enter into the same and were not bound by the terms of the compromise, or by the action of their Pleader in presenting the same to the Court. The Court of first instants, overruled this contention and passed a decree in terms of the compromise. The lower Appellate Court has set aside this decision and remanded the suit to the Court of first instance for trial on t...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Das Vs. Rama Nand Bharti and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All314
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This order was clearly right. We cannot improve upon the admirable judgment of the lower appellate court. There is obviously a serious question as to whether the plaintiff can establish a charge for more than Rs. 201, the only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6, But in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was no notice. Great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Gur Dayal Singh v. Karam Singh (1916) I.L.R. 38 All. 254, in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase money.' That dictum was Hot necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that p...
Tag this Judgment!Deokinandan Vs. Zamir HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1920
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.24
1. The facts of this case are as follows;--One Zafaruddin Khan originally owned the property now in dispute. He died some years ago leaving a widow Latifan, a son Habibuddin Khan and a daughter Manisi Bagam. Munisi Begam is the daughter of Zafaruddin Khan by Musammat Latifan. This lady has married a second husband, Habibuddin got his name record ed in the revenue papers in respect of the entire property after the death of his father and on the 14th of January 1906 he sold it to defendant No 1. In March 1915, Munisi Begam sold her share in her father's property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of possession of the share sold to him. There can be no doubt; that the property belonged to Munisi Begam, the vendor of the plaintiff. The only plea which was put forward by the defendants was that Habibuddin and after him the defendants had been in adverse possession and that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-title, namely, Munisi Begam, were never in p...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Nand Bharti Vs. Sheo Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All54; 60Ind.Cas.933
1. This order was clearly right. We cannot improve upon the admirable judgment of the lower Appellate Court. There is obviously a serious question as to whether the plaintiff can establish a charge for more than Rs. 201. The only ground upon which he suggests it in his plaint, being an allegation of negligence on the part of the defendants, in paragraph 6 But in this case notice is clearly found, and in the authorities relied upon there was we notice. Great reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Qur Uayal Singh v. Karam. Singh (I) in which case there was no notice, and particularly upon the dictum contained on page 260 Page of 88A.--[Ed.]of the judgment, where it was said that in a case where by an agreement part of the consideration is left in the hands of the vendee to pay a creditor, such agreement and the money payable thereunder is not 'unpaid purchase went.' That dictum was not necessary for the decision of that case, and we think that probably, at some future ...
Tag this Judgment!Nisar HusaIn and ors. Vs. Muhammad Askari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All311
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to property in the Basti district belonging to a lady named Ashraf-un-nissa, who died on the 18th of May, 1917, possessed of immovable property of considerable value, not only in the Basti district but also in the Gonda district of Oudh. Admittedly the said lady had been on bad terms with her brother Ata Husain and there ha 1 been previous litigation between them in the Oudh courts On the 28th of April, 1917, it is alleged that Musammit Ashraf-un-nissa had executed a deed of endowment, settling the whole of her immovable property on certain trustees for certain specific purposes. On her death a dispute broke out between the present respondents and the appellant Muhammad Askari, a former general attorney of the deceased lady who was named the principal trustee in the deed of endowment. The question of possession over the estate of the deceased lady was fought out in the first instance upon applications for mutatio...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Lokpal Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All98; 59Ind.Cas.655
Ryves, J.1. In the course of a murder trial before the Committing Magistrate, the Magistrate, at the instance of the prosecution, issued summons to Lal Lokpal Singh to appear in his Court apparently to give the prosecution an opportunity to examine him with reference to a letter produced by the prosecution. The summons was issued on three occasions but without result. The enquiry in the Magistrate's Court was concluded without the evidence of Lal Lokpal Singh having been recordedMissing tiff Page No. 656...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammad Askari Vs. Qazi Syed Nisar HusaIn Alias Munee and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All149; 60Ind.Cas.901
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises relates to property in the Basti District belonging to a lady, named Ashrafunnisa, who died on the 18th of May 1917, possessed of immoveable property of considerable value, not only in the Basti District but also in the Gonda District of Oudh. Admittedly, the said lady had been on had terms with her brother, Ata Husain, and there had been previous litigation between them in the Oudh Courts. On the 28th of April 1917, it is alleged that Musammat Ashrafunnisa had executed a deed of endowment, fettling the whole of her immoveable property on certain trustees for certain specific purposes. On her death a dispute broke out between the present respondents and the appellant, Mohammed Askari. A former general attorney of the deceased lady, who was named the principal trustee in the deed of endowment. The question of possession over the estate of the deceased lady was fought out in the first instance upon applications for mutation of names in the Reve...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ganpat Rai Vs. Musammat Husaini Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.905
1. The father of the plaintiff in this Base held a decree against one Mazhar Husain, in execution of which he brought to sale, as the property of his judgment debtor, one entire house, and himself purchased it at auction on the 25th of February 1805. On attempting to take possession he was resisted by Musammat Ishrat Begam, one of the sisters of Mazbar Husain, who claimed the entire house as her own property. He asked for the assistance of the Court, but after an investigation of his claim the Court refused to put him in possession. The present suit was instituted on the 26th of February 1917, apparently on the last possible, day of limitation, assuming that the plaintiff was entitled to bring his suit within twelve years of the date of the auction purchase. The plaint is wholly silent as to the attempt made to obtain possession through the Court in the year 1806. On the face of if, it is a suit upon title, claiming possession by purchase of a 2/5ths share in the house as the property ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »