Allahabad Court April 1922 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.
Rameshwar Dube Vs. Sheo Harakh Dubb and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All277; 66Ind.Cas.529
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a unit for recovery of damages for misappropriation of crops. Ram Ghulam was an occupancy tenant. He died a long time ago leaving a son, Mangru. He died leaving a widow, Musammat Tapesara, who remained in possession of the occupancy holding. The defendant Rameshwar was a sub-tenant of Musammat Tapesara. In 1915 the defendant Rameshwar acquired a frantion of the Zamindari share also. Tapesara sued to eject Rameshwar as her sub-tenant and he pleaded proprietary title. The Revenue Court referred the defendant, Rameshwar, to the Civil Court for a declaration of his title. On the 15th of January 1917 the Civil Court held that Rameshwar was only a sab-tenant. On the 21st of March 1917 the Revenue Court accordingly ordered his ejectment. On the 22nd of May 1917, when Rameshwar's crops were standing on the fields, formal possession was delivered to the lady. She on the 5th of September 1917 executed a permanent lease of the plot to the plaint...
Brij Lal and ors. Vs. Damodar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All238; (1922)ILR44All555
Walsh, J.1. This appeal raises two points. It was an application in the court below against a person who had become a transferee of a decree which was subsequently sot aside in the Privy Council in favour of the present appellants. The transferee was not a party to the proceeding in the Privy Council, but under the decree which the Privy Council set aside and of which he had become a transferee, he obtained possession of certain property and was, therefore, in the enjoyment of mesne profits in respect of it. The application to the court below, which was in substance a proceeding under Section 144, but which adopted all the forms applicable to execution proceedings, asked that the respondent should account for mesne profits during the time for which he had been unlawfully in possession under a decree which had been set aside. The application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that it was time-barred by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, and, secondly, on the ground that the ...
Lala Birj Lal and ors. Vs. Lala Damodab, Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.545
Walsh, J.1. This appeal raises two points. It was an application in the Court below against a person who had become a transferee of a decree whish was subsequently set aside in the Privy Council in favour of the present appellants. The transferee was not a party to the proceeding in the Privy Council, but under the decree whish the Privy Council set aside and of which he had besoms the transferee, he obtained possession of certain property and was, therefore, in the enjoyment of mesne profits in respect of it. The application to the Court below whish was in substance a proceeding under Section 141, but whish adopted all the forms applicable to execution proceedings, asked that the respondent should account for mesne profits during the time whish he had been unlawfully in possession under a decree whish had been set aside. The application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it was time-barred by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, and, secondly, on the ground that the res...
Shakira Bibi Vs. Nandan Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All241; 66Ind.Cas.613
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises has been instituted by a Zemindar in the Azamgarh District against certain riaya on the allegation that they have appropriated the wood of a free which was standing upon land of which they were in occupation after the tree had fallen down. She asserted that under a custom of the village, she, as Zemindar, was entitled to half the value of all fallen timber, and she instituted a suit for small damages and for an injunction prohibiting the defendants from questioning her rights in such matters in future.2. The defendants admitted that they were riaya; they admitted that the tree stood upon land of which they were in occupation; they admitted that the tree had fallen down and that they had appropriated it but they denied the existence of any custom entitling the plaintiff to half its value.3. The Trial Court found that such a custom did exist and decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court found that no such custom existed. The Zemindar appeals ...
Bachcha Lal Vs. Hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922All240; 66Ind.Cas.814
1. The plaintiff bought a house from Chhedi Lal and Bachcha Lal. Mubin is in possession of a room of that house. He refused to recognise the plaintiff's title to the house on the ground that he was holding the room from Bachcha Lal and that Bachcha Lal was a minor at the time the deed of sale was executed. The Trial Court held that the burden of proof to show that Bachcha Lal was not a minor at the time that the deed of sale was executed was on the plaintiff, and that as he produced no evidence, his suit for the ejectment of Mubin mast fail. The lower Appellate Court found that the burden of proof was on Mubin and that as his evidence to prove that Bachcha. Lal was a minor was insuffisient to satisfy the Court, the suit must succeed. Bachcha Lal appeals here.2. I do not accept the view of either of the Courts below. The law on the subject is laid down clearly in Gaya Din v. Dulari 2 Ind, Cas. 839 : 6 A. L. J. 693. When the validity of a contract is questioned on the ground that the exe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›