Allahabad Court January 1921 Judgments
Sri Thakur Radha Madho Lalji Through Ram Dass Vs. Ram Sewak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All77; 62Ind.Cas.739
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit for rent and the dispute before us relates to what is known in the case as 'Gaon Kharach.' The parties to this appeal are the Zemindar and certain agricultural tenants. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, brought a suit in the Revenue Court seeking to recover arrears of rent from the defendants on account of their holdings of cultivator land. In his statement of account the plaintiff put down the rent of the land at a certain figure and added to that amount another figure under the head of village expenses, which is sometimes calculated at the rate of three pies and sometimes at the rate of four pies a rupee on the rental of the land. There was also a claim for acreage cess, with which we are not concerned in this appeal. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree for rent and also for the Gaon Kharach. On appeal, the learned District Judge has held that it has not been established before him that the Gaon Kharach is in fact p...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Bax and ors. Vs. Musammat Piari Alias Nasiban and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.744
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants under the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs' allegations were that there was an old takia situated in the city of Bareilly near the Civil Hospital, that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were buried in if, that amongst others one Rasul Shah and after him Ramzan Shah, his son, were the takiadars and managers of the cemetery on behalf of the Muhammadans, that after the death of Ramzan Shah, the last takiadar, his widow, sister and daughters along with the other defendants commenced appropriating the property to their private use as proprietors, built houses for residence, misappropriated building materials of a dilapidated mosque and did certain other acts of desecration which caused mental pain to the plaintiffs, and that the defendants also made some transfers inter se of the various parts of the takia aforesaid. The plaintiffs further allege that they, having taken the necessar...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Gulzari Lal Vs. Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All40; 62Ind.Cas.695
1. This is a lamentable matter. Twenty years ago, in 1901, the defendant obtained a decree against the plaintiff for possession of a share in village Mahrehra. In the decree the defendant's share, instead of being put, as it should have been, at 11 biswas, 7 biswansis and 2 kachwansis, was by mistake entered as 11 biswas, 17 biswansis and 2 kachwansis. In due course the appeal came before the High Court who affirmed the order of the lower Court, and no point was taken in the High Court as to any error in dimension. The defendant, Gulzari Lal, obtained mutation of names and got an entry made in the khewat of the share in the holding as of the exact amount decreed by the Courts. That included the 10 biswansis to which in fact he was not entitled. In the year 1905 a suit for profits was brought by Gulzari Lal against Makbul Ahmad. In that suit be claimed the profits which attached to the extra 10 biswansis. He failed in that suit, and in 1909 an application was made to the High Court to h...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jalil Khan and ors. Vs. Obed-ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All165; (1921)ILR43All416
Grimwood Mears, Kt. C.J. and George Knox, J.1. The following pedigree will make clear the relationship of the partita to this appeal: Zahur Ali Khan. | ----------------------------------------- | | | | Abdur Rahman Abdul Ghafur Abdullah. Abdul Shakur Khan. Khan (born 1861). | Khan (born 1870). | | |Abdul Latif Khan Obed-ullah Khan | (born 1871, died (defendant, born 1880) | 1909). | | ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | | | | |Abdul Jalil Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Three daughtersKhan (plaintiff No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. (not parties). No. 1.)2. The plaintiffs claim as hiirs of Ablul Shakur Khan and Abdul Latif Khan certain properties in villager Chakathal and Khakethal.3. The principal issue in the court below was whether the greater portion of the properties in suit were acquired by Abdul Ghafur Khan for and on behalf of Abdul Shakur Khan and Abdul Latif Khan and whether two persons, Mahmud Ali Khan and Seraj-ul-Haq were benamklars for Ab...
Tag this Judgment!Chulhi Upadhya Vs. Baddri Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All225; 62Ind.Cas.672
1. The facts of this appeal are somewhat complicated but the appeal may be decided on a short point. In execution of a decree certain Zemindari property was attached and as it was ancestral property the record was sent to the Collector of the District for execution. He directed a sale to be held. The officer reported to him that the highest bid was Rs. 1,005. The Collector accepted that bid, but before the sale was confirmed it was brought to his notice that the bid was mush less than the property was worth. Thereupon the Collector passed the following order, 'Re sale will take place on the 20th June 1914 after proclamation; unless there is a higher bid the sale of the 20th March 1913 will stand.' Objection was taken to that order and an appeal was made to the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, hence this suit. The relief sought by the plaintiff is, 'The sale dated the 20th of March 1913 be confirmed and a decree awarding possession over a one anna share in Mauza Khol...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Mohammad Abdul Jalil Khan and ors. Vs. Kunwar Mohammad Ubedulla ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1921
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.725
1. The following pedigree will make clear the relationship of the parties to this appeal: ZAHOOR ALI KHAN | __________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Abdul Rahman Abdul Abdullah, Abdul Shakur Khan, Ghafoor Khan, | Khan, | (born 1861). | (born 1870) Abdul Latif | | Khan, Obedullah Khan, | (born 1871) defendant, | (died 1909). (born 1880). | | ____________________________ | _____________________________________________________ | | | | | Abdul Jalil Plaintiff Plaintiff plaintiff Three Khan, No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. daughters plaintiff No. 1. not parties.2. The plaintiffs claim as heirs of Abdul Shakur Khan and Abdul Latif Khan certain properties parties in villages Chakathal and Khakethal.3. The principal issue in the Court below was whether the greater portion of the properties in suit were acquired by Abdul Ghafoor Khan for and on behalf of Abdul Shakur Khan and Abdul Latif Khan and whether two persons, Mahmood Ali Khan and Serajul Haq, were benamid...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Said-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Fida HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All112; 61Ind.Cas.385
1. The plaintiff in this suit is a co-sharer in a certain village and the principal defendants are also co-sharers. The plaintiff claims that she acquired a certain share from defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and that she has been in joint possession of that share from the commencement of the year 1323 Fasli, but that during the two previous years, viz., 1321 and 1322 Fasli, the first three defendants contrived to keep her out of possession. She claims profits from them on account of those two years. Both the Courts below have said that the suit as brought is not cognisable by the Civil Court. The lower Appellate Court has said, further, that it cannot deal with the case under the provisions of sections 196 and 197 of the Tenancy Act (II of 1901), because a suit for profits under that Act would be different in its nature from the suit actually brought. The decision of the Court below is not logical. If this was a suit essentially of a civil nature, and so different from a suit for profits unde...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan and anr. Vs. Mewa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All211; (1921)ILR43All409; 61Ind.Cas.513
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This application for revision arises out of proceedings taken under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party decree-holder put in an application for execution. The judgment-debtors objected and it was found that some of the allegations made by the decree-holder in that application for execution were incorrect. The judgment-debtors thereupon applied for sanction to prosecute the decree-holder under SECTION 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Munsif granted the application. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge which he transferred to the Additional District Judge for disposal. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the application for sanction to prosecute. The judgment-debtors come here in revision and their contention before me is that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, regard being had to the provisions of Section 195, Clauses 6 and 7, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the said clauses the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhry Brahm Singh and anr. Vs. Bhandu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All102; 62Ind.Cas.687
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This application in revision arises under the following circumstances. It appears that the auction-pur-chasers, decree holders, applicants, obtained a decree for about Rs. 215 from a Court of Small Causes. They put in an application for transfer of the decree to a Munsif, inasmuch as they wanted to sell some of the immoveable property belonging to the judgment-debtor to satisfy the amount due to them. After certain proceedings the 3rd of September 1918 was the date eventually fixed for sale of the property. On the 30th of August 1918 the judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 59 in cash and asked for a postponement of the sale to enable him to pay up the decretal amount. The decree holders' Pleader received this money and it was agreed that the judgment-debtor should have three months' time to pay up the decretal amount, that the sale should be postponed and that the Amin should be informed accordingly. By some mistake or other information cord not be given to the Amin and he...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupal Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All399
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale based upon two mortgage deeds of the 26th of May, 1913, and the 6th of December, 1913, executed by the defendants Gauri Shankar and Beni Prasad for Rs. 600 and Rs. 300, respectively. The property mortgaged consisted of two houses. The court of first instance dismissed the claim on the basis of the mortgage of the 6th of December, 1913, and decreed the claim on the basis of the mortgage of the 26th of May, 1913. The defendant alone appealed and on appeal the lower appellate court dismissed the claim also on the basis of the deed of the 26th of May, 1913. The plaintiff has come here in second appeal, and the contention is that the decision on the point of law raised in the court below by that court is incorrect and that, on a true interpretation of the law, the claim under the bond of 26th of May, 1913, should have been decreed and the lower appellate court ought to have dismissed the appeal in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »