Allahabad Court July 1921 Judgments
Maharaja Kesho Prasad Singh Vs. Sheopargash Ojha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All301; 64Ind.Cas.248
P.C. Banerji, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my brother Tudball and I fully agree with it. There is nothing which I may profitably add without repeating what he has said.2. Having regard to the recent pronouncements of their Lordships of the Privy Council which my learned colleague has quoted at length, it must be held that a suit by a reversioner for setting aside an alienation made by a Hindu widow in possession is brought by him in a representative capacity, that is, as representing the whole body of reversioners for the protection of the estate. A decree in such a suit is, therefore, binding not only between the reversioner who brought the suit and the transferee, but also as between the whole body of reversioners on the one hand and the transferee or his representative-in-title on the other. This is so, not because one reversioner must in that case be deemed to claim through another, but because the reversioner who sues represents the others and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhauni Vs. Ram Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All58; 64Ind.Cas.426
1. We think that this appeal must prevail. The facts are these :--The appellant owned a biswa 5 biswansi Zimindari share. He sold I bisma out of that share together with certain sir plots of land to three persons. The present plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption in respect of that sale and obtained a decree. Subsequently the plaintiff instituted the present suit for recovery of possession of the sir plots. His allegation was that the defendant had, by a deed of relinquishment executed on the same date on whish the sale-deed had been executed, given up his ex proprietary rights in regard to the sir land; that the original vendees had obtained possession of the land and let it to third parties; that the plaintiff after his decree for pre eruption was also in possession but that the defendant had dispossessed him, On this allegation the plaintiff claimed to recover possession. Amongst the pleas raised by the defendant was a plea to the effect that be was the ex proprietary tenant of t...
Tag this Judgment!Bismillah Begam Vs. Nur Muhammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All61
Tudball and Lindsay, JJ.1. On the issues remitted, the court below has come to a definite finding that the marriage has not been consummated, but its finding on the other issue, namely,--'When did Musammat Bismillah first come to know that she had a right of repudiating her marriage?'--is by no means definite or clear. The story told by the girl and her uncle is that a pleader, Shaikh Ahmad Husain, was consulted and when he gave his opinion her uncle Abdullah informed the girl and she at once repudiated the marriage. The uncle Abdullah and the girl herself put this at a period of some three years before they gave their evidence, Ahmad Husain, on the other hand, put it at some 3 1/2 years; but ho was by no means definite, and the court came to the conclusion that it must have been some time between November, 1916, and January, 1917. The repudiation was made on the 7th of March, 1917. The lower court has assumed that the appellant was informed of the opinion of Shaikh Ahmad Husain at the...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bismillah Begam Vs. Nur Mohammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All155; 63Ind.Cas.702
1. This appeal arises oat of a suit biought by the plaintiff-appellant, Musammat Bismillah, for a declaration that she had lawfully repudiated her marriage with her husband the defendant-respondent, Nur Muhammad, and that the decree, dated the 31st March 1916, obtained by the latter against her for restitution of conjugal rights was of no force. She alleged that she repudiated the marriage soon after the attainment of her puberty. The admitted fasts are that the marriage between the parties took place when the plaintiff appellant was a minor and the marriage was brought about under the guardianship of her mother. Sometime after the marriage Nur Muhammad, who himself was a minor at the time of marriage, sued for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree on the 31st of March 1915. On the 27th of August 1917 the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed by Musammat Bismillah for the declaration mentioned above. At the time of the suit the age of her husband was 17. Sev...
Tag this Judgment!Dol Singh and ors. Vs. Khub Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All97; 64Ind.Cas.408
1. The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arises are briefly as follows:On the 6th of June 1878 Ganga Din, father of the plaintiffs appellants before us, sold to Putti Lal, the father of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, respondents, a Zemindari share in village Dharmangadpur and another share in village Raipure, in the Cawnpo for the sum of Rs. 400, According to the plaint the price was a low price by reason of the relationship between the parties On the same date the vendee Putti Lal executed a separate document in which he made the following agreemet:--'I, the executant, promise and execute this document in proof of my promise that when I the purchaser or my heirs want to transfer the shares in the two villages, then I will sell them to Ganga Din or his heirs for the sum of Rs. 400 and will not sell them to anybody else. If perchance I the purchaser or my heirs shall sell or mortgage the property elsewhere, the document effecting such a sale or mortgage will be illegal.2. On ...
Tag this Judgment!imdad Ali Khan Vs. Zamir-ul-hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All59
Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, refusing to entertain an appeal preferred by the applicant and dismissing it on the ground that no appeal lay. The facts were these:A suit was brought in the Court of a Munsif who had been vested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes for the recovery of damages for cutting down the branch of a tree. The suit was undoubtedly one of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and was accordingly instituted on the Small Cause Court side of the Munsif's Court. Before the cause came to trial the Munsif proceeded on leave and was succeeded by an officer who was not vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. He tried the suit as a regular suit and made a decree for a portion of the claim. An appeal was preferred from that decree, but the appellate court refused to entertain the appeal and held that no appeal lay. This view of the low...
Tag this Judgment!Basdeo Sahai Vs. Musammat Saraswati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.469
P.C. Banerji, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this application for revision on the ground that there is another remedy open to the applicant and, therefore, he is not entitled to apply in revision. What happened was this:--The applicant holds a decree against the husband of the respondent and in execution he caused certain property to be attached as the property of his judgment-debtor. The respondent preferred an objection claiming the property as her own. In that objection case an application was made to the Court by the decree-holder and the objector, asking the Court to refer the case to arbitration. The Judgment-debtor did not join in that application and, therefore, the Court did not refer the matter to arbitration but decided it itself and ordered the property to be released from attachment. Upon the making of that order it was open to the applicant to institute a suit under Order XXI, ; Rule 63, for the establishment of his title' to bring the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Zamirul Hasan Khan Vs. Imdad Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1922All161; 64Ind.Cas.573
P.C. Banerji, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, refusing to entertain an appeal preferred by the applicant and dismissing it on the ground that no appeal lay. The facts were these:--A suit was brought in the Court of a Munsif, who had been vested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small cases, for the recovery of damages for suiting down the branch of a tree. The suit was undoubtedly one of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes and Was accordingly instituted on the Small Cause Court side of the Munsif's Court. Before the case name to trial, the Munsif proceeded on leave and was succeeded by an officer who was not vested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. He tried the suit as a regular suit and made a decree for a portion of the claim. An appeal was preferred from that decree, but the Appellate Court refused to entertain the appeal and held that no appeal lay. This view of the lower Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram Kumar Vs. Nem Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All73; 64Ind.Cas.447
1. The plaintiff is the appellant here and his suit has failed in both the Courts below on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. In our opinion the finding of the Courts below on the question of limitation is correct, We think the suit was time-barred.3. The suit was one of a somewhat peculiar nature. The plaintiff name into Court alleging that his grandfather and a number of other persons, exceeding 20, had in the year 1898 combined together for the purpose of starting a cotton press and ginning factory. All the persons, who took part in the formation of this business, contributed capital to the undertaking and in substance the suit of the plaintiff now is for the return of the capital which was subscribed by his grandfather, who appears to have taken a principal part in launching this business.4. The plaintiff founded his case on the plea that the number of persons who joined in starting this business being in excess of 20, the association was an illegal one with reference t...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jarao Kunwar Vs. Rani Bhagwan Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All184; 63Ind.Cas.773
1. This is a defendant's appeal arisng out of a suit for contraction. One Thakur Das died leaving a widow Musammat Jarao Kunwar. On his death a dispute arose between Jarao Kan war on the one side and two persons, Chiranji Lal and Ram Pratab, on the other. Thakur Das had a first cousin namad Himmat Ram. Ram Pratab and Chiranji Lal claimed that Thakur Das and Himmat Ram were joint; that Ram Pratab was the adopted son of Himmat Ram and that Chiranji Lal was the adopted son of Thakur Das. They, therefore, claimed that Jarao Kunwar had no right whatsoever to the estate in dispute, which she claimed to be the separate estate of Thakur Das. There was considerable litigation between these contesting parties and finally on the 25th of April 1913 they same to a compromise. Under that compromise it was settled that Ram Pratab was to take half the estate immediately; that Jarao Kunwar was to remain in possession of the other half of the estate for her lifetime; that she was to live on the income d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »