Allahabad Court May 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 Mindya Vs. Jhurya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All217(2); 57Ind.Cas.272
1. The facts of this case may be briefly put. When the present Tenancy Act same into force, two persons, Ram Ghulam and his uncle Jhurya who constituted a joint Hindu family, held an occupancy tenancy as a joint Hindu family. One member of a joint family has died and it is claimed by his widow that she is entitled to inherit his interests Under Section 22 of the Tenancy Act. A learned Judge of this Court who heard the appeal held, in view of the ruling in Mahabir Singh v. Musammat Bhagwanti 33 Ind. Cas. 110 : 38 A. 325 : 14 A.L.J. 278, that the tenant, i.e., the joint family, not having died, Musammat Mindya, the widow of Ram Ghulam, acquired no interest in the tenure. We are not prepared to dissent from the ruling quoted. We can see nothing in the Act to prevent a joint Hindu family, as such acquiring an occupancy tenure. Section 22 lays down the devolution of the interest of an occupancy tenant when the tenant dies. If one member of a joint Hindu family which has acquired an occupanc...
Maharaj Shib Charan Dass Vs. Mohamed Zahur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All219(1); 57Ind.Cas.245
1. This is an application in revision for the discharge of an order passed by the Court below, refusing to entertain an appeal from an order, by which an application for the restoration of a suit to the file was dismissed. The suit in connection with which the said application was made, was fixed for final hearing on the 4th February 1918. On that day the Pleader for the plaintiff appeared and asked for an adjournment stating that he was unwell. The trial Court refused to grant an adjournment and suggested that if he was unwell, another Pleader could be engaged to take his place. The Pleader who prayed for the adjournment then went away to at range for some other Pleader to take his place. The trial Court waited for some time for another Pleader to appear, but as no other Pleader appeared, and the plaintiff was absent, it dismissed the suit; for the non appearance of the plaintiff and his Pleader.2. An application was then made by the plaintiff to set aside the order of dismissal, the ...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Shib Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All305; 60Ind.Cas.261
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising oat of the following circumstances. In 1884 the defendants sold their Zamindari in a certain village with two groves situate thereto to the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. It is alleged that in the year 1914 the defendants ejected the plaintiff's leasee from one of the grove?, whereupon certain proceedings were taken in the Criminal Courts which ultimately ended in the acquittal of the defendants, It is not denied that, so far as the other grove is concerned, the defendants have ever since the sale of 1884 continued in possession thereof. The plaintiff's allegation is that, in the year 1916, the defendants again attempted to take possession and hence he brought the present suit for a declaration that he is the owner of the grove No. 174 and that the defendants have no right to, and possession over, it is the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for possession if the defendants dispossessed him during the pendency of the suit. The defence was,...
Udal Singh and anr. Vs. Baldeo Singh and Tara Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All1
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain property which belonged to Narpat Singh, who died childless in April, 1912. He had six nephews alive at the time of his death. Out of them three, namely, Raghabar Singh, Tura Singh, and Rewat Singh, were the sons of his brother Ganpat Singh, one Baldeo Singh was the son of his brother Dalip Singh, and the remaining two, Gajram Singh and Genda Singh, were the sons of his brother Roshan Singh. Ganpat Singh, Dalip s Singh and Roshan Singh had died in the life-time of Narpat Singh and had been living separately from him; so were their sons. On the death of Narpat Singh an application for mutation of names was presented by Raghubar Singh, Tura Singh and Gajram Singh on behalf of themselves and their minor brothers, Rewat Singh and Genda Singh, for the entry of the names of all the nephews in respect of the estate left by the deceased, in equal shares, An objection was filed by Baldeo Singh, claiming a half share in the said pr...
Baldeo Singh Vs. Udal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All248; 58Ind.Cas.732
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain property which belonged to Narpat Singh, who died childless in April 1912. He had six nephews alive at the time of his death. Out of them three, namely, Raghubar Singh, Tura Singh, and Rewat Singh, were the sons of his brother, Ganpat Singh; one, Baldeo Singh was the son of his brother, Dalip Singh; and the remaining two, Gajram Singh and Genda Singh, were the sons of his brother, Roshan Singh. Ganpat Singh, Dalip Singh and Roshan Singh had died in the lifetime of Narpat Singh and had been living separately from him; so were their sons. On the death of Narpat Singh an application for mutation of names was presented by Raghubar Singh, Tura Singh and Gajram Singh on behalf of themselves and their minor brothers Rewat Singh and Genda Singh, for the entry of the names of all the nephews in respest of the estate left by the deceased in equal shares. An objection wan filed by Baldeo Singh, claiming a half share in the said prop...
Zahurul Haq and ors. Vs. Nabi Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All41; 57Ind.Cas.478
1. This was a suit in which one Nabi Bakhsh claimed possession of certain Zamindari property and the houses standing on the abadi land. Nabi Bakhsh says that he became the owner of the same by an auction-purchase of the 28th of May 1915, which was ostensibly in favour of one Kalian. The plaintiff Says that Kalian acted as his benamidar and he holds a formal relinquishment in his favour executed by Kalian on the 19th December 1917. In this appeal we. are not concerned with the merits of the plaintiff's claim; as a matter of fact the question before us in whether those merits are or are not to he investigated. The difficulty raised by certain defendants had reference to partition proceedings which were going on in the year 1915. We understand that the record of those partition proceedings was before the Court below. It has not been laid before us, and we are content to deal with the matter on the facts as stated in the judgment under appeal, although there is more than one point on which...
Sita Rai and ors. Vs. Ramdeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All58; 57Ind.Cas.711
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them to have it declared that a certain deed of gift executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (the widow and daughter of one Sambhal Rai) in favour of defendant No. 3, the son of defendant No. 2, is viod and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs, the reversionary heirs of the two sons of Sambhal Rai. The plaintiffs are very distant relatives of the deceased Sambhal Rai and their main grounds of attack were, first, that the defendant No. 3 was not the son of defendant No. 2, second, that Sambhal Rai had died leaving sons, and the defendant No. 1 was in possession as a Hindu mother; and third, that owing to a compromise which had been entered into between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the one hand and the plaintiffs on the other, the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 could not make any valid transfer of the property so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff--3, the next reversioners. This compromise was effected on the 28th of February 1880 in ...
Mul Chand Vs. Bengal and North-western Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR42All655
Piygott and Walsh, JJ.1. This is a suit brought by Mul Chand, a trader of Agra, against the Bengal and North-Western Railway, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh for Rs. 2,060 damages for the loss or non-delivery of 113 bags of chillies consigned to him by a trading firm of the name of Bharose Potdar, of Darbhanga district. The latter firm were joined as defendants together with the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway, but both these defendants obtained judgment in their favour in the trial court.2. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was that the defendants' servant negligently pointed out the wrong bags at the destination of the consignment, and that the consignment was thus not delivered. It is not alleged to whom this demonstration was made, nor to whom the consignment was in fact delivered, but the breach of duty is alleged to have taken place on the 22nd of May. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The District Judge treating it as an action for non-delivery hel...
Sukhnath Rai and anr. Vs. Nihal Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All249(2); (1920)ILR42All661
Piggott and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is an application in revision by two persons, Sukhnath Rai and Chandu Lal, who may hereafter be conveniently spoken of as the applicants. They, were parties to a properly drawn up submission to arbitration, dated the 3rd of November, 1915, under which certain matters in dispute between them and the opposite party were referred for decision to two named arbitrators and a named umpire. It seems that violent disputes broke out between the parties shortly afterwards and that a considerable period of time elapsed during which no action was taken by the arbitrators. The question who. is to blame, or who is most to blame, for this state of things is not really before us. The applicants finally addressed a letter to the arbitrator and received from him a reply which they have sought to interpret as a withdrawal on his part from the arbitration, or to put it more strictly, a refusal to act any longer as umpire under the submission. Following upon this the ap...
B.N.W. Railway Co. and anr. Vs. Mul Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All280; 58Ind.Cas.1000
1. This is a suit brought by Lachmi Moolchand, a trader of Agra, against the Bengal and North Western Railway, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, for Rs. 2,060, damages for the loos or non delivery of 113 bags of chillies consigned to him by a trading firm of the name of Bharose Potdar of Darbhanga District. The latter firm were joined as defendants together with the Rohilkhand and Kumaun Railway, but both these defendants obtained judgment in their favour in the Trial Court.2. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was that the defendant's servant negligently pointed out the wrong bags at the destination of the consignment, and that the consignment was thus not delivered. It is not alleged to whom this demonstration was made, nor to whom the consignment was in fact delivered, but the breach of duty is alleged to have taken place on the 22nd of May. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The Distrust Judge, treating it as an action for non-delivery, held that the d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »