Allahabad Court February 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.
Ram Lal Rai Vs. Musammat Murta Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All361; 75Ind.Cas.676
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the adoption of Bisbunath Rai, defendant No. 2, by Musammat Murta Kuer, the widow of Basudeo Rai, on the 24th of January 1908, under a registered-deed was null and invalid for reasons given in the plaint and for a further declaration that be, the plaintiff-appellant, was a reversioner of Basudeo Rai. A similar suit, it seems, was brought by the plaintiff-appellant in 1912 which he withdrew with leave to bring a fresh one, if so advised. One of the objections taken to the present suit was that the claim was barred under Article 118 of the Indian limitation Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in whose Court the suit was file I on the 8th of December 1919 allowed the plea of limitation and dismissed the claim. In appeal before us it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the view of law taken by the Court below is not sound. It is argued that, if the adoption is void ab initio, A...
Tarif Vs. Asa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All419; 73Ind.Cas.212
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is, whether the defendant-appellant has acquired proprietary rights or occupancy rights and is consequently not liable to ejectment. The plaintiff sued for ejectment of the defendant under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act, read with Section 34 of the same Act. The pleas taken in defence were that the defendant had teen in possession for more than twelve years and by such possession he had become either the owner of the plot or an occupancy tenant of the same and could not be ejected therefrom.2. The two Courts below have concurrently found that the defendant had been in possession for more than 12 years without payment of rent but, acting under Section 34 of the Tenancy Act, they have decreed the ejectment of the defendant as a non-occupancy tenant holding that the plaintiff chose to accept him as a tenant on the date when he brought the suit for ejectment. This view is supported fry a ruling of the Board of Revenue in Sat Narain Pra...
Benarsi Vs. Bhullu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All423; 73Ind.Cas.227
Gokul Prasad, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is a very short one, namely, whether the puisne mortgagee can sue successfully for a decree for sale of the mortgaged property without impleading a prior mortgagee who has already purchased the mortgaged property in execution of a decree for sale on his mortgage without impleading the puisne mortgagee.2. The Courts below have answered this question in the negative and have dismissed the plaintiff's puisne mortgagee's suit for sale.3. He comes here in second appeal and contends that, under the new Code of Civil Procedure, the puisne mortgagee can bring the mortgaged property into sale without impleading a prior mortgagee. That Rule would, of course, apply in an ordinary case in which the property belongs to the mortgagor, but here the relief claimed by the puisne mortgagee is against the mortgaged property which has been sold in satisfaction of a decree on a prior mortgage to which he was not a party. The ordinary Rule of a property ...
Musammat Naraini and ors. Vs. Kunj Bihari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All437
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. We agree with the view of the learned Judge of this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs....
Kunj Behari Lal and anr. Vs. Musammat Naraini and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All125; 71Ind.Cas.1026
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and P.C. Banerji, J.1. We agree with the view of the learned Judge of this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale....
Dwarka Ram and ors. Vs. Jhulai Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All248; (1923)ILR45All429
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.1. This was a suit brought by the son of a vendor who sold certain property for Rs. 1,400. A claim for pre-emption was put forward in regard to this property and the property was pre-empted by the defendant Jai Gobind Singh. The court below has found that half of the property sold by the plaintiff's father was non-ancestral property and the claim, has therefore been dismissed as regards that half. As regards the remaining half the learned Judge of this Court has made a decree to the effect that Jai Gobind Singh should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 200. which was found not to have formed valid consideration for the sale inasmuch as it was not required for family necessity. According to the findings Rs. 1,200 out of the Rs. 1,400 was for family necessity. Therefore, out of the consideration, for half the property Rs. 600 was required for family necessity and is to be deemed to be valid consideration for the sale. As, however, a part of the co...
Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Muhammad Fasih-ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All432
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows. The plaintiff brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur or the 15th of January, 1920. After the evidence had been recorded arguments were heard on the 16th of December, 1920, and judgment was reserved. Judgment was delivered on the 21st of March, 1921, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. We presume that the court adopted the proper procedure prescribed in Order XX, Rule I, and gave the parties, or their pleaders, notice of the date on which the judgment was to be delivered, but, in any case, it is admitted by the appellant that he knew, as a matter of fact, that his suit had been dismissed, on the 27th of March, 1921. The decree was not signed by the presiding officer until the 2nd of April. No application was put in for a copy until the 13th of April. An application was then filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge. It was returned, apparently on the 18th of April, on the grou...
Sri NaraIn and anr. Vs. Raghunath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All434
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. These appeals arise out of four suits based on four hundis executed in November, 1914, by Harnam Singh, deceased. The defendants appellants are nephews of Harnam Singh and formed a joint family with him. It has been found by both courts below that the debts were incurred in connection with the marriage of one of the appellants, Sahu Raghunath Singh, and that the amount borrowed for the purpose of the marriage was not excessive in view of the status of the family. On this finding it necessarily follows, and it has been held by the court below, that the debts were incurred for legal necessity.2. Two pleas have been urged in appeal. The first is that inasmuch as a hundi is a negotiable instrument within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it could not be enforced against the appellants whether it was incurred on behalf of the joint family or not. This point, as the learned advocate for the appellants admits, has been definitely decided against him in th...
Sheikh Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Fasihullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All455; 74Ind.Cas.1039
1. The facts out which this appeal has arisen are as follows. The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur on the 15th of January 1920. After the evidence had been recorded arguments were heard on the 16th December 1920 and judgment was reserved. Judgment was delivered on the 21st March 1921, dismissing the plantiff's suit. We presume that the Court adopted the proper procedure prescribed in Order XX, Rule 1 and gave the parties or their Pleaders notice of the date on which the judgment was to be delivered, but in any case it is admitted by the appellant that he knew, as a matter of fact, that his suit had been dismissed on the 27th March 1921. The decree was not signed by the presiding officer until the 2nd April. No application was put in for a copy until the 13th April. An application was then filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was returned, apparently on the 18th April, on the ground that the record had been sent to the District Judge'...
Haji Shaikh Boodha Vs. Babu Sukhram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.989
Gokal Prasad, J.1. This second appeal arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession of two plots of land on removal of certain construction made by the defendant on these plots. The plaintiffs' allegation was that they were the zemindars and the defendant was the raiyat and as such had no right to construct on the two plots in dispute. The defendant contended that he was the owner of the plots by virtue of two sale-deeds executed about 60 years ago by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the defendant. The two sale-deeds relied upon by the defendant were filed, they were of the years 1841 and 1843. The Munsif mainly relied on these two' sale-deeds although the plaintiffs objected to them on the ground that they did not bear the signatures of the wendors although one of them was literate. The Munsif, however, found on the evidence in favour of the defendant and dismissed the claim. On appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »