Allahabad Court December 1920 Judgments
Musammat Masihunnissa and ors. Vs. Musammat Kaniz Sughra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-31-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All276; 60Ind.Cas.975
1. The plaintiff in this case sued for possession over a half share in a certain house. The defendants pleaded that, whether or not the plaintiff had a good title, neither she nor the transferors from whom she claimed had been in possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit. They further pleaded that they them selves had been adverse possession for more than 12 years prior to the institution of the Brit. The first Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, and that finding was upheld by the Court of first appeal. On second appeal a learned Judge of this Court held that the decision of the two Courts below bed proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law. He treated the finding of the lower Appellate Court is amounting to nothing more than a Bad in that the plaintiff and her transferors had not been in actual possession within 12 years of the institution of the emit. Hi held that it had not yet bean determined whether the plaintiffs transferors had been ousted by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Singh Vs. Basant Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All147; (1921)ILR43All380
Muhammad Rafiq and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant as lambardar for the recovery of arrears of rent; or revenue against the defendant respondent, a co-sharer. The claim was laid at Rs. 456, for three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit. The claim was resisted on various pleas. The Assistant Collect or decreed the claim for Rs. 125-12-2 on the 30th of May, 1917. On the 8th of August, 1917 the plaintiff made an application to the Court of the Assistant Collector for amendment of the decree on the ground that the evidence of the patwori showed that the money due to the plaintiff from the defendant for revenue for the years in suit was Rs. 374-2-5. The Assistant Collector without issuing notice to the opposite party amended the decree then and there. On the 11th of September, 1917, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the court of the District Judge complaining of the disallowance of interest to him in the decree of the f...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Gajadhar Singh Vs. Basant Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.69
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant as Lambardar for the recovery of arrears of rent or revenue against the defendant-respondent, a co-sharer. The claim was laid at Rs. 456, for three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit. The claim was resisted on various pleas. The Assistant collector decreed the claim for Rs. 125-12-2 on the 30th of May 1917. On the 8th of August 1917, the plaintiff made an application to the Court of the Assistant Collector for amendment of the decree on the ground that the evidence of the Patwari showed that the money due to the plaintiff from the defendant for revenue for the years in suit was Rs. 374 2 5. The Assistant Collector, without issuing notice to the opposite party, amended the decree then and there on the 11th of September 1917, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge complaining of the disallowance of interest to his in the decree of this first dart. The appeal was re je...
Tag this Judgment!Matbar Singh Vs. Ranbaz Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All212; 61Ind.Cas.65
1. It appears that one Sheo Parsan Singh had three sons, named Ram Adhin Singh. Kudam Singh and Hanwant Singh. Sheo Parsan Singh's sons are dead. One Musammat Gujrati was the widow of Ram Adhin Singh and the daughter in law of Sheo Parsan Singh. She executed a deed of gift of the property in dispute on the 26th of November 1915 by a registered deed in favour of Mautbar Singh, a remote collateral of Sheo Parsan Singh. Mnsammat Gujrati died in July 1916. On the 28th of November 1916 the suit out of which this appeal has arisen wan brought, by the plaintiff appellant against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that he, the plaintiff, was entitled to the property in dispute and that the defendants-respondents, who are alleged to be the reversioners of the husband of Mnsammat Gajrati, had no right to the said property. The suit was brought on the allegation that the defendants respondents has denied the title of the plaintiff before the Kanungo and were thinking of opposing the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Prasad and ors. Vs. Raja Narandra Bahadurpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All223; 61Ind.Cas.74
1. It appears that one Raja Mahesh Sitla Box Singh executed a deed of mortgage on the 6th of July 1885 in favour of the father of the defendants-appellants, under the said mortgage-deed one of the items of property mortgaged was a ten-anna, six pie share in Mama Gaura Goshain. In 1910 the sons of the mortgagee instituted a suit to recover the money due on the mortgage and obtained a decree on the 15th of September 1910. On the 25th of July 1914, as final decree was passed in their favour. On the 26th of November 1914 the decree e holders applied for execution of the decree. In the execution application, among other property that was sought to be sold, the share 1 of the judgment-debtor in the village of in Gaura Goshain was also entered and described as ten annas 6 pies with a Government revenue of Rs. 108, At the auction Bale the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and one of the defendants-appellants made bids. One of the defendants-appellants bid up to Rs. 4,000 but the plaintiff-respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaniz Sughra Bibi Vs. Masih-un-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All377
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for possession over a half share in a certain house. The defendants pleaded that, whether or not the plaintiff had a good title neither she nor the transferors from whom she claimed had been in possession within 12 years of the institution of the suit. They further pleaded that they themselves had been in adverse possession for more than 12 years prior to the institution of the suit. The first court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and that finding was upheld by the court of first appeal. On second appeal a learned Judge of this Court held that the decision of the two courts below had proceeded upon an erroneous view of the law. He treated the finding of the lower appellate court as amounting to nothing more than a finding that the plaintiff and her transferors had not been in actual possession within 12 years of the institution the suit. He held that it had not yet been determined whether the plaintiff's transferors ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prasad Vs. Bhup NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All52; (1921)ILR43All411
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. We think that this appeal must be allowed, having regard to the new rules which were drawn up by the Rules Committee of this Court and which were gazetted on the 1st of June, 1918. The service in this case was rightly made. It is no longer necessary in a suit instituted after June, 1918, for personal service to be effected for the purposes of an appeal, and to that extent the learned Judge in the court below was right. But it would appear that he did not consult the new rules, or that the point was not taken before him, because if he had looked at the new Rule 22 of Order VII, he would have seen that, although service by fixing to the outer door of the house is prima facie sufficient, where a party is not found at the address given by him, one locus penitent ice is given to him if he is absent at the hearing. The latter part of the now Rule 22 of Order VII runs in this way:'If on the date fixed such party is not present, another date shall be fixed and a copy o...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Prasad Vs. Bhoop Narayan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.135
1. We think that this appeal must be allowed, having regard to the new rules which were drawn up by the Rule Committee of this Court and which were gazettad on the 1st of JUne 1918. The service in this case was rightly made. It is no longer necessary in a suit instituted after June 1918 for personal service to be effected for the purposes of an appeal, and to that extent the learned Judge in the Court below was right. But it would appear that he did not non suit the new rules, or that the point was not taken before him, because if he had looked at the new Rule 22 of Order VII he would have seen that, although service by fixing to the outer door of the house is prima facie sufficient, where a party is not found at the address given by him one locus poenitentise is given to him if he is absent at the hearing of the matter, whatever it may be the latter part of the new Rule 22 of Order VII runs in this way:If on the date fixed such party is not present another date shall be fixed and a co...
Tag this Judgment!Asa Singh and anr. Vs. Naubat and Jhanda Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All105; 61Ind.Cas.34
1. The fasts of this case are simple. Lal Singh and his mother, on the 12th of April 1917, sold their share in the village to one Jhanda Singh, an entire stranger. At the late of this sale the plaintiff Naubat and the present appellants, Asa Ram and Bijay, were related to Lai Singh and his mother, Asa Ram and Bijay being nearer. POP the purposes of thin decision we may assume that the closer relatives had the prior right of preemption. Asa and Bijay, however, took no steps to assert their right, so Naubat, on the 12th of April 1918, that is, the extreme limit of the period of limitation, brought his suit to preempt the sale to Jhanda Singh. While the suit was pending and prior to the decree, Jhanda Singh transferred the property to Asa and Bijay. They were made parties to the suit. The Courts below have held that the transfer to Asa and Bijay pendents lite has not affected the plaintiff's right to preempt and have given him a decree. Asa and Bijay come here in second appeal and it is a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani DIn and ors. Vs. Jadunath Misir and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All272; 61Ind.Cas.89
1. This first appeal from order arises out of a suit for preemption. The undisputed facts are as follows:The suit relates, to shares in two villages Mauza Katia and Mauza Sakhwi. In the year 1885 these two villages consisted of one mahal each and the wajib-ul-arz which was drawn up related the existence of a custom under which the Co-sharers were divided into five groups. The first group consisted of sharik aziz baid; the second of sharik aziz baid; the third of their patti; the fourth of hissadar thok, and the fifth of malikan deh. The two villages were at that time divided up into thok and pattis. In the year 1895 each village was perfectly partitioned into seven separate and dieting mahals. The usual wajib-ul-araiz were not drawn up at the time of partition. At the next settlement, for each mahal there was recorded a wajib-ul-arz in which the same custom of pre-emption was recorded as had been recorded in 1885. It is an admitted fast that the plaintiff pre-emptor is not a co-sharer ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »