Allahabad Court June 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.
Tika Ram and ors. Vs. Salig Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All158; 57Ind.Cas.494
ORDERTudball, J.1. This is a suit by Hindu reversioners for possession of an estate left by their cousins, Bhagwan and Behari. Bhagwan died leaving a widow, Musammat Mohan Kunwar. Behari died leaving behind him only the widow of his pre-deceased son. Musammat Mohan Kunwar and Musammat Gomti, the widow of the predeceased son of Behari, joined together in executing a sale deed of a certain portion of the property. It is this property which the present plaintiffs seek to recover. Their plea is that Musammat Gomti had no power whatsoever to sell under any circumstances and Musammat Mohan Knnwar had no power to sell as there was no legal necessity. As a matter of actual fact the plaintiffs did ask in their plaint that the sale-deed be declared null and void as against them and the possession of the property be granted to them. Suits of this nature are very common and they have always been treated as ordinary suits for possession of property and Court-fee is paid on five limes the Government...
Bhupal Singh Vs. Ujagar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All364; (1921)ILR43All88; 58Ind.Cas.122
Tudball and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. The facts of this case, so far as we have been able to discover them from the record, are as follows:In the year 1897 or thereabouts one Kanak Singh sold certain property to a certain vendee. The present plaintiff appellant brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree and apparently paid up the amount of money and was put in possession. In the year 1913 a co-sharer in the village applied for an imperfect partition of his share. Up to that date the pre-emptor had not obtained mutation of names in respect to the pre-empted property. Kanak Singh had then died and is represented now by the present defendants respondents. These defendants respondents also applied for an imperfect partition of their shar'e as recorded in the khewat, which included the pre-empted share. The pre-emptor also applied for an imperfect partition of his recorded share which did not include the pre-empted share. Certain other persons also applied for partition of their shares....
Miyan Khan Vs. Sarfaraz Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All302; 60Ind.Cas.65
Walsh, J. 1. ON the authority of the case of Nandan Singh v. Ganga Parshad 20 Ind. Cas. 892 : 35 A. 512 : 11 A.L.J. 786 and the case of ponnammal v. Rumamirda Aiyar 27 Ind. Cas. 679 : 38 M. 829 : 7 M.L.T. 125 : 28 M.L.J. 127 : (1915) M.W.N. 130 I think that we have no alternative but to restore the decree of the first Court, allowing the appeal with costs here and hitherto.Sulaiman, J.2. This is an appeal arising oat of a suit for mesne profits. It appears that on the 17th of August 1878 one Musammat Mohan Kuer who was only a limited owner, made a mortgage of toe, property for which mesne profits are now claimed in favour of the defendants. It is now admitted that on the death of Mohan Kuer, Piarey Lal, her daughter's son, succeeded to the full proprietary interest in the property, the mortgage being good only for her lifetime. On the 30th of September 1915, Piarey Lal sold his rights and interest to the plaintiff. After this the plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of possession of t...
Musammat Mahmud Jahan Begam Vs. Govind Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.4
1. This is an appeal by one defendant out of a large number of parties to a partition suit instituted in the Civil Court. Govind Ram, Hari Ram and Anand Ram sued for partition of their shares in certain properties claiming a three-fifths share therein. The property consisted of house property and some Zamindari and other miscellaneous properties. Among the items of properties which they sought to divide were three items, namely, Khata Khewat No. 35, Khata Khewat No. 65 and Khata Khewat No. 66 in Qasba Meerut. While the suit was pending, Anand Ram died and was succeeded by his two daughters, Musammat Bhagwanti and Musamma Sita. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on the 17th of September 1913, under which the three plaintiffs were held entitled only to a one-fifth share and not to the three-fifths that they claimed. While the suit was pending, i.e., on the 14th of February 1912, Hari Ram and Anand Ram sold to one Ram Saran Das a two-fifths share in Khata Khewats Nos. 35, 65 an...
Jawahar Bano and anr. Vs. Shujaat HusaIn Beg and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All367; 58Ind.Cas.114
1. These two connoted appeals are appeals by the defendants in Baits for profits under Section 165 of the Tenancy Act against their co-shares. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/6th share of the total profits.2. Second Appeal No. 1296 arises out of a suit which was brought on the 21st of July 1916. The suit was decree d partly against Kazim Ali beg and partly against Musammats Jawahar Bano and Mumtaz Bano. Musammats Jawahar Bano and Mumtaz Bano appealed to the District Judge without making Kazim Ali Beg a party to the appeal. Kazim Ali did not appeal from the decree against him. No appeal or cross-objection was filed by the plaintiffs against Musammats Jawahar Bano and Mumtaz Bano.3. Second Appeal No. 1293 arises out of Suit No. 12 of 1915 for profits by the same plaintiffs against the same set of defendants but for different years. In this case, also, a decree was passed against these two sets of defendants, but both of them appealed to the District Judge. After va...
Har Prasad and ors. Vs. Khazan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All0143; 57Ind.Cas.441
Tudball, J.1. This is a Letter Patent appeal arising out of a suit for rent. The facts are as follows: The defendant was a Zamindar, a Jat, in possession of certain lands which were in his cultivation. In the year 1910 be made a usufructuary mortgage of these lands to the present plaintiff. At the time of the mortgage the parties came to an agreement under which the defendant mortgagor was to continue cultivating the land as tenant (ex-proprietor) and was to pay a certain rent. As a matter of fact a kabuliat was drawn up. The properly mortgaged was in two villages and separate rents were agreed upon for each village. Apparently there was a considerable delay in applying for mutation of names, but in 1913 there was a mutation case which was finally decided by an order passed on the 5th of March 1913. The Assistant Collector, the Sub-Divisional Officer before whom the case came, passed what purports to be an order under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act, in which he distinctly said: 'I ...
Birbal Vs. Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.815
1. The question in this appeal is purely one of fact, whether a certain document, namely, a mortgage-deed upon which the present suit has been based, was one for consideration and a genuine document, or whether it was a fictitious and fraudulent document executed without consideration to defeat the rights of the appellant to whom the mortgagor was indebted. The Court of first instance held in favour of the appellant. On appeal the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court came to a different conclusion and held that the mortgage-deed in suit was one for consideration and was not shown to be either fraudulent or fictitious, nor had it been executed to defeat the appellant's rights. As matters stand, these are findings of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal, but it has been contended before us that the admission of the mortgagor about his indebtedness to the plaintiff mortgagee to remove which the present mortgage was executed, is not binding upon the appellant, who is ...
Ram Karan Vs. Sri Thakur Ram Narainji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1920All298; 60Ind.Cas.74
1. This is an appeal from, the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore who felt himself unable to go into the merits of the claim of the plaintiff, holding that in the circumstances the claim was barred by the doctrine of 'res judicata. We have to see whether that decision was well founded, and for that purpose it is necessary that we must go into the previous history and the previous litigation. It appears that on the 27th of May 1890 certain persons, Munna Lai, Kamta Praaid, Debi Din and Lalta Prasad, sons of Kashi Din, and Ram, Karan and Behari Lal, son of Dat Ram, executed a dead of endowment by which they made over certain property to an idol, Sri Thakur Ram Narainji, in certain villages. Under that deed of endowment the appellant in the present appeal, being the plaintiff in the Court below, was appointed the manager and the other executants and one outsider were appointed Fanches. Mutation was duly effected as regards the properties favour of the idol and there were p...
Baij Nath Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All77
Sulaiman and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The circumstances under which this appeal has arisen are briefly as follows: The parties to the present suit put in an objection to the attachment of certain property attached in execution of a decree of one Ganga Sahai. The objection was disallowed, and thereupon some of the parties of this suit and the predecessor in title of others, appointed two persons as special attorneys in order to institute a suit in the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid Ganga Sahai for a declaration that the property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree which Ganga Sahai had obtained against a third person. After certain evidence had been taken this suit was dismissed for default of prosecution, and the decree holder defendant, Ganga Sahai, was awarded his costs against the parties to the present suit. He realized those costs from the plaintiff, and the present suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, has been brought by the plaintiff for co...
Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-16-1920
Reported in: AIR1921All372; 58Ind.Cas.324
1. The circumstances under which this appeal has arisen are briefly as follows:-- The parties to the present suit put in an objection to the attachment of certain property attached in execution of a decree of one Ganga Sahai. The objection was disallowed and thereupon some of the parties to this suit and the predecessor-in title of others appointed two persons as special attorneys in order to institute a suit in the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid Ganga Sabai for a declaration that the property was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree which Ganga Sabai had obtained against a third person. After certain evidence had been taken, this suit was dismissed for default of prosecution and the decree -holder defend ant, Ganga Sihai, was awarded his costs against the parties to the present suit. He realised those costs from the plaintiff and the present suit, out of which this appeal has arise a, has been brought by the plaintiff for contribution against his co ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »