Allahabad Court December 1920 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.
Musammat Bakhti Kuar and ors. Vs. Pandit Ganga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.226
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for ejectment. The land in suit was at one time grove land situated in the neighbourhood of the city of Cawnpore. It is now waste land which, according to the finding of the learned District Judge, has wholly lost the character of a grove. This Ending does not seem to be challenged in the memorandum of appeal before us, but in any case it is obviously correct. On the pleadings it was admitted that the plaintiff was the Zemindar of the land and that the defendants entered into possession as tenants of the plaintiff. The possession of the defendant, therefore, was that of grove-holders. They have been cutting down the trees and building houses. The suit in ejectment is brought on the ground that a cause of action for the ejeetment of the defendants accrued to the plaintiff when the land entirely lost the character of a grove, The learned District Judge has held that this happened well within twelve years of the institution of the suit, so ...
Lala Alias Khacheru Vs. Ram Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1920
Reported in: 63Ind.Cas.255
Rafique, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are shortly stated as follows: The plaintiff-appellant Lala sued in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad for a declaration that a lease given by a distant relative of his to Ram Chandra was invalid and inoperative and not binding on him, the plaintiff, and that possession of the land in respect of whiah the lease was given should be delivered to him, as also mesne profits during the period that the lessee had been in possession. It was alleged in the plaint that Jhandu gave the lease on the 26th of February 191a to Ram Chandra in respect of the property of Lala at the time that Lala was a minor The claim was brought against Ram Chandra and Jhandu was made a proforma defendant Ram Chandra urged various pleas in defence. He stated that the lease was given by the guardian of the plaintiff and that the elaim was not maintainable in a Civil Court. The learned Munsif who tried the case found that Lala was a minor on the 26th of Feb...
Sham Das Vs. Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All325; 60Ind.Cas.831a
Muhammad Rafiq and Ryves, JJ.1. It appears that Hanuman Prasad was the zamindar of the village of Bamni. Sham Das, alleging himself to be the rent-free grantee of certain plots situate in that village, sued one Shibban for the recovery of rent, describing him as a sub-tenant. The latter pleaded that he was the tenant of Hanuman Prasad, the zamindar, and had in good faith paid the amount to him on the 1st of July, 1916. The rent court allowed the plea in defence and dismissed the claim of Sham Das. Thereupon the latter brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of Rs. 37, principal and interest, the amount of the rent realized by Hanuman Prasad. Hanuman Prasad died before the institution of the suit. It was brought against his legal representatives. Sham Das alleged in his plaint that he was a rent-free grantee of the plots of which rent had been realized by Hanuman Prasad and that he (Sham Das) had been in possession for a number of years and had acquired pro...
Bindhya Chalisingh and ors. Vs. Nawalraj Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All328
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. We think the court below had jurisdiction to inquire into and to determine the question of fact which it has refused to determine. We send down the following issue:Was Baz Bahadur Singh, the minor son of Mahesh Singh, living or dead on the date on which the appeal, pending in his name before this Court, was beard and determined and a decree passed in his favour on the 1st March, 1918?2. On receipt of the finding, tea days will be allowed for objections....
Babu Ram Vs. Shankar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All330
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. The defendant in this case was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of a certain shop with buildings appertaining to the same. The suit was one in ejectment against the defendant, and the courts below have differed on the question whether a certain notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant was valid to terminate the tenancy, under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, No. IV of 1882. The first court held that it was not, and that consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment, or to any decree except one for arrears of rent. The lower appellate court has held that the notice was valid to terminate the tenancy and has remanded the case to the first court, because on this view of the matter there remain other questions to be determined before a final decree could be passed, The appeal before us is against the order of remand. One point taken is that, inasmuch as the law requires a notice expiring with the en...
Bhaiya Bindha Chal and ors. Vs. Nawal Raj Kuari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All404; 64Ind.Cas.927
1. We think the Court below had jurisdiction to enquire into and to determine the question of fact which it has refused to determine. We send down the following issue:Was Baz Bahadur Singh, the minor son of Mahesh Singh, living or dead on the date on which the appeal, pending in his name before this Court, was heard and determined and a decree passed in his favour on the 1st March 1918?2. On receipt of the finding, ten days will be allowed for objections....
Shankar Lal Vs. L. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All194; 60Ind.Cas.842
1. The defendant in this case was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of a certain shop with buildings appertaining to the same. The suit was one in adjustment against the defendant, and the Courts below have differed on the question whether a certain notice served by the plaintiff on the defendant was valid to terminate the tenancy under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, IV of 1882. The first Court held that it was not and that, consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for ejectment, or to any decree except one for arrears of rent, The lower Appellate Court has held that the notice was valid to terminate the tenancy and has remanded the case to the first Court, because on this view of the matter there remain other questions to be determined before a final decree could be passed. The appeal before us is against the order of remand. One point taken is that, inasmuch as the law requires a notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenan...
Gyan Singh and ors. Vs. Ata HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All56; (1921)ILR43All320
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for a final decree in a mortgage suit. The application which is now the subject matter of controversy was presented on the 12th of June, 1917. The question is whether this application was time-barred. The preliminary decree in the suit was made on the 30th of April, 1912. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage against some of the properties comprised in the mortgage, on the ground that the other properties had been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. The court in making its decree declared the liability of each of the properties against which the mortgage was sought to be enforce and it also declared in its decree that each of those properties would be liable for a proportionate part of the amount found to be due upon the mortgage. Those amounts were specified in the decree and the property which was to be liable for those amounts was also specified. Six months were granted to the mortgagors...
Thakur Gayan Singh and ors. Vs. Ata HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.817
1. This appeal arises out of an application for final decree in a mortgage suit. The application whish is now the subject matter of controversy was presented on the 12th of June 1917. The question is, whether this application was time-barred. The preliminary desree in the suit war made on the 20th of April 1912. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage against some of the properties comprised in the mortgage on the ground that the other properties had been purchased by the mortgagees themselves. The Court in making its decree declared the liability of each of the properties against which the mortgage was sought to be enforced, and it also declared in its decree that each of those properties would be liable for a proportionate part of the amount found to be due upon the mortgage. Those amounts were specified in the decree and the property whish was to be liable for those amounts was also specified. Six months was granted to the mortgagors for payment of those amounts. There was a furt...
Jwala Singh Vs. Fatta Alias Natha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: 60Ind.Cas.825
1. The two Appeals Nos. 36 and 37 of 1918 are connected, inasmuch as they are between the same parties and the points for determination are practically the same. It appears that four persons, namely, Jwala Singh, Sabir Singh, Har Gulal Singh and Dakhla, obtained from the Revenue Courts three decrees for their share of profits against Fatta, the Lambardar. The three decrees were obtained on the 5th of May 1909, 8th of November 1910 and 28th of August 1913. On the 17th of January 1910 fatta executed a deed of gift in favour of his grandson, Budh Singh, in respect of some property. On the 11th of December 1913 Fatta executed a deed of sale in respect of the same property and some other properly in favour of his son and grandson, namely, Simru and Budh Singh. On the 7th of December 1914, two suits were filed by Jwala Singh and others against Fatta his son, his grandson and Niader. By one suit Jwala and others sought to have the deed of gift in favour of Budh Singh declared invalid and inop...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »