Allahabad Court December 1923 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.
Karim Bakhsh Vs. Wahaj-ud-dIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All427; (1924)ILR46All214
Stuart, J.1. This appeal is mainly on two points. The first is whether certain partition proceedings in a revenue court were vitiated by the omission to issue fresh proclamation of the proceedings, and the second is whether even if those proceedings were regular, the plaintiff appellant is prevented from, obtaining a relief, under the provisions of Section 233(k) of Local Act III of 1901. The facts, in respect of the first point are these: A Gertain Wahaj-ud-din applied to the revenue authorities for partition of his share in a village in the Allahabad district. He puts in this application in 1909. In the course of the proceedings, two brothers, Meera Bakhsh and Aulia Bakhsh, who are recorded co-sharers of a 2 pie share, took certain objections to the partition which involved a question of proprietary title. These objections were decided against them and that decision became final. These objections were decided against them before March, 1916. In March, 1916, Wahaj-ud-din withdrew his ...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Babu NobIn Chandra Bose and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1024
1. The property claimed by the plaintiff-appellant is 5/6 ths of a certain property once owned by one Musammat Chanda. She mortgaged the whole of it in 1914 and died a year later. She left her surviving two heirs her mother Mt. Nasiban and her son Siddiq. The son was a minor. The mother sold the entire property in 1915 to the respondent No. 1 in this appeal for a sum of Rs, 500. She received in cash a sum of Rs. 100 and left with the transferee the sum of Rs. 400 for the purpose of payment of the mortgage which had been executed by Mt. Chanda in 1914. Siddiq attained majority sometime in 1919 and in 1921 sold the property to the appellant. The appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of 5/6 ths of the property being the share of Siddiq in it.2. The Court of first instance held that the appellant was entitled to recover the 5/6ths of the property but subject to payment of 5/6ths of the sum of Rs. 400 that went to pay off the mortgage created by Mt. Cha...
Karim Bakhsh Alias Karam Bakhsh Vs. WahajuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1035
Stuart, J.1. This appeal is mainly on two points. The first is, whether certain partition proceedings in a Revenue Court were vitiated by the omission to issue fresh proclamation of the proceedings, and the second is whether even if those proceedings were regular the plaintiff-appellant is prevented from obtaining a relief under the provisions of Section 233 of Local Act III of 1901.The facts in respect of the first point are these: A certain Wahaj-ud-din applied to the revenue authorities for partition of his share in a village in the Allahabad district. He put in this application in 1909. In the course of the proceedings two brothers, Meera Bakhsh and Aulia Bakhsh, who are recorded co-sharers of a two pie share took certain objections to the partition which involved a question of proprietary title. These objections were decided against them and that decision became final, These objections were decided against them before March 1916. In March 1916 Wahaj-ud-din withdrew bis application...
Shukr-ullah and ors. Vs. Dildar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All152
Stuart and Mukerji, JJ.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these: The appellant and some others, on whose behalf the appellant has appealed, obtained two mortgages of certain shares in a patti of 4 annas. Subsequently, it is not clear whether after the redemption of the mortgages or before the redemption, the mortgagees purchased a small share (6 pies) out of the patti. The mortgages were redeemed. After the mortgage the appellants obtained possession over certain plots of land. Presumably this possession was obtained as mortgagees and on behalf of the mortgagors. The dispute arose when the mortgage was redeemed. The mortgagees refused to give up the lands over which they were in possession as mortgagees. Their contention was that they had become co-sharers in the lands and they were entitled to keep possession as co-sharers.2. The courts below gave a decree for joint possession to the plaintiffs and also a decree for mesne profits. The plaintiffs have not anne...
Mahabir Vs. Manohar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All540; (1924)ILR46All208; 79Ind.Cas.816
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an application in revision against an award which has been accepted by the court below in a suit pending before it. On the date of the hearing of that suit, the pleaders for the parties stated that they had agreed to arbitration and wanted to refer the matter in dispute to a certain pleader named by them for decision. Their statements were recorded by the court and a reference was made in accordance with their agreement. The arbitrator made an award, to which certain objections were taken by the defendants; but they did not there state that the reference was invalid because it was not in writing, or that they had not authorized their pleaders to make it. In fact the valcalatnama filed by the applicant in the court below expressly authorized the pleader concerned to enter into an agreement of arbitration. An objection is now taken that under paragraph 1 of the second schedule attached to the Code of Civil Procedure, the agreement ought to have been in writing,...
Dildar Vs. Shukrullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All444; 78Ind.Cas.1023
1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these: The appellant and some others, on whose behalf the appellant has appealed, obtained two mortgages of certain shares in a patti of 4 annas. Subsequently, it is not clear whether after the redemption of the mortgages or before the redemption, the mortgagees purchased a small share (6 p:) out of the patti. The mortgages were redeemed. After the mortgage the appellants obtained possession over certain plots of land. Presumably this possession was obtained as mortgagees and on behalf of the mortgagors. The dispute arose when the mortgage was redeemed. The mortgagees refused to give up the lands over which they were in possession as mortgagees. Their contention was that they had become co-sharers in the lands and they were entitled to keep possession as co-sharers.2. The Courts below gave a decree for joint possession to the plaintiffs and also a decree for mesne profits. The plaintiffs have not appealed. The contentions of ...
Kalyan Rai Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1925All130; 78Ind.Cas.1033
1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in coming I dismiss this application with costs. to the conclusion that only a part of the consideration of the promissory note, which was the basis of the suit, out of which this appeal arises, passed. The Court of first instance had relied on the presumption of the law that a promissory note is executed for a consideration. The learned District Judge controverted this presumption on the fact that as a matter of fact at least a part of the consideration was not paid on the date the promissory note was executed. He also admitted into evidence a certain statement of the executants of the promissory note. It was contained in the sale deed executed by them. By this sale-dead the executants left a part of the sale consideration for payment of the very promissory note now in question. They said that only a sum of Rs. 700 was due from them on account of the promissory note. The learned Judge thoug...
Bhullan Singh Vs. Khushi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All229; 79Ind.Cas.320
1. By a document executed on the 7th of August 1920 purporting to be a sale-deed, certain property was transferred by one Shib Sahai in two mahals, namely, mahal Ishk Lal and mahal Ghasi Rarm.2. The result of this transfer was to provoke two suits for pre-emption which have given rise to the two appeals before us. In one case the plaintiff was Challoo, who is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1187. In the other case the plaintiff was Bhullan Singh, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 1188.3. It was found by the Courts below that a custom of pre-emption existed in this village.4. Both Courts, however, dismissed both the suits on the ground that the document of the, 7th of August 1920, which purported to be a not evidence of a real transaction of sale giving rise to a right to pre-empt.5. The decision of the Courts below is attacked here on the ground that they were both wrong in allowing evidence to be given regarding the nature of this deed. It has been strongly contended that, on the ...
Man Singh Vs. Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All430; 79Ind.Cas.599
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a mango tree which formed a part o a grove standing in No. 254 Khasra of the village Nagla Lala and had fallen in a storm sometime in July 1921. The plaintiffs are the zemindars of that village. The defendant, Man Singh, is the grove-holder, or the descendant of the person who had originally planted the grove. The land in question was at one time his occupancy holding but the portion which is now covered by the grove was converted into a grove sometime before the old Settlement. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the defendants had no right to sell the fallen wood and appropriate its price. The Courts below found in their favour and decreed the claim. It is objected on behalf of the plaintiffs that no Second appeal lies, because the suit was of a Small Cause Court nature. The allegation of the plaintiffs, however, amounted to a charge of criminal misappropriation of the wood; and Clause 35 of the Second Schedule of the Pro...
Bindeshwari Prasad Tiwari Vs. Hanuman Prasad Tiwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All445; 79Ind.Cas.640
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This was a suit for damages for slander. The parties to the suit are residents and zemindars of the village Jamni. In November 1920 the Sub-Divisional Officer visited that village and met the parties. The defendant Bindeshwari Prasad told him that the plaintiff Hanuman Prasad was in the habit of causing the crops of other persons to be reaped and getting them grazed by cattle, and that he was a constant source of trouble and worry to the people of the nighbourhood. It appears that the name of the plaintiff was at one time in the history sheet and had been subsequently removed. The Sub-Divisional Officer told Hanuman Prasad that he should not behave in a manner calculated to give rise to complaints against him and the matter there ended2. The allegation of Hanuman Prasad was that the object of Bindeshwari Prasad in making that statement was to get him implicated in a proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that he made that statement falsely...