Allahabad Court April 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.
Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Basant Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.330
Kanhaya Lal, J.1. Basant Rai is the sola respondent in this appeal. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether a lambardar can sue the other co-sharers of the village, who hold sir or khudkasht land, for a refund of such profits as they may have realized in excess of their share.2. The suit was filed by the lambardar in this instance against two co-sharers Kundan Lal and Misri Lal, who have been found to have held khudkasht land in excess of their share. The Court of first instance confined its decree to the share of the lambardar in such excess. The lower Appellate Court allowed the decree for the entire excess. One of the defendants-appellants died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs did not apply for substitution within the time allowed by law, his appeal, therefore, has abated. The other appellant wants to contest the right of the lambardar to realise anything in excess of his share, as a co-sharer, under Section 165 of the Agra Tenancy Act II of 1901). A...
Devi Prasad Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All68; 74Ind.Cas.746
Daniels, J.1. This is a revision from an order of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Allahabad. The point for decision before him was whether a deposit it a Provident Fund; which so long as the subscriber was in service was a compulsory deposit within the meaning of Section 2(4) of the Provident Funds Act (IX of 1897), became attachable by a creditor the moment the subscriber retired. The subscriber in this case has retired but has not yet drawn his deposit. The learned Judge of the Court below has followed the decision in Veerchand v. B.B. & C.I, Ry., Co., 29 B. 259 : 6 Bom. L.R. 921, and has held that the deposit is not attachable. The learned Judges took the view that compulsory deposit in the Act was a term with a technical meaning and that a deposit which came within the definition remained a compulsory deposit until it was actually drawn out. The Subscriber's retirement made no difference to its nature. The same view as was held in Bombay has been taken by the High Court...
Nanhu and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All608; 75Ind.Cas.361
1. Nanhu and Bhagga were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bareilly under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code with reference to the death of one Tika and under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code for administering dhatura poison in the food served to Gopal and Raghbar. They were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under each section, the sentences to run concurrently. They appealed from jail and a learned Judge of this Court directed that notice should issue to the appellants to show cause why they should not be Convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for poisoning Tika, and why their sentences should not be enhanced or other suitable order passed. Notice has been served but no appearance had been made. The facts of the case admit of no dispute. On the 26th May 1922 these two accused, who are Kurmis by caste, but who represented themselves to be Banias, made friends with three young men Tika, Gopal and Raghbar, who were returning to servic...
Chiswa Vs. Deo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.947
Daniels, J.1. This appeal and cross-objection arise out of a suit brought in the Muosif's Court for a declaration. The plaintiff-respondent. Deo Narain, filed with his plaint two lie to, list A and list B. As regards the plots in list A he alleged that he and certain pro forma defendants were the sole occupancy tenants of, and were in possession of, these plots, and he asked lor a declaration that the answering defendant, Ghiswa, the appellant in this Court, had no concern with or right in those plots. As regards the plots in list B of which Ghiswa was admittedly in possession, he asked for a declaration that Ghiswa was his subtenant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as not cognizable by the Civil Court. As regards the list B plots the learned District Judge agreed with the Trial Court. As regards the other plots he held that the suit was not barred, and on the merits that the plaintiff was, and the defendant was not, the occupancy tenant of these plots. He accordingly decreed the su...
Chitu Vs. Charan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All563; 77Ind.Cas.705
Daniels, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant claims the property is suit as reversioner of Musammat Sumitra, widow of Dale Ram. His case was that Musammat Samitra came into possession of the property as a Hindu widow on her husband's death. The plaintiff aid the defendant Nathi are, the two reversioners to Dule Ram and are entitled, to the property in equal shares on Musammat Samitra's death. The reversionary right of the plaintiff and Nit hi is not disputed. On Musammat Sumitra's death Nathi took possession of the whole of the property and executed two usufructuary mortgages. The dispute is as to how far these mortgages are binding on the plaintiff's share. The mortgages were both executed 01 the sans day. One was for Rs. 1,505 in favour of the respondent Charan Singh and the other for Rs. 375 in favour of the respondent Khashera. The Court below has held these mortgages to be binding on the plaintiff's share to the extent of Rs. 1,143-13-9 and Rs. 232-2-2 respectively and has given the plai...
Dhirja and ors. Vs. Mithan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All562; 74Ind.Cas.914
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in a. suit for profits under Section 165 of the Tenancy: Act. The plaintiffs are recorded in the Revenue papers as full owners of the store in respect of which they sued for profits. According to the defendants the plaintiffs merely owned the equity of redemption and the defendants are usufructuary mortgagees of the share. The entry, as it stands, was admittedly made by mistake. The Revenue Court ordered mutation to be mace in the plaintiffs' favour of the equity of redemption only. This was in the year 1917. By some mistake the order was not carried out and the entry was mace as stated above and has so remained down to the present time. Another curious complication In the case is that, according to the District Judge, the order of the Revenue Court was not in accordance with the Civil Court decision on which it was based and the learned Judge was of opinion that the entry though technically wrong was really in accordance with the rights of the parties. ...
Radha Krishun Shukul and ors. Vs. Nokh Lal Shukul and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All566; 74Ind.Cas.964
Daniels, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs to set aside as not binding on them a compromise in a previous suit, dated 12th January 1920, entered into by their elder brother Sita Ram as their guardian ad litem. The plaintiffs and their elder brother Sita Ram ere the sons of one Ram Sunder. There had been a partition between Ram Sunder and his brother Nokh Lal, the answering defendant in the present case. Subsequently, Nokh Lal brought a suit against the plaintiffs and their elder brother alleging that the partition was vitiated by fraud and that the sons of Ram Sunder had, in consequence, obtained possession of more than their proper share. This suit was ultimately compromised Sita Ram entering into the compromise on his own behalf and also as guardian ad litem of his minor brothers, the plaintiffs. The only ground on which the plaintiffs in their plaint sought to set aside the compromise is contained in paragraph 3 of the plaint in which they a...
inder Deo Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Charitter Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All560; 74Ind.Cas.971
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of 14 blswas 6 dhurs of land in the village of Hata in the Ghazipur District. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Pema. Pema and the answering defendants jointly took a perpetual lea se of three plots of sir land with at area of 2 bighas 16 biswas at a rent of Rs. 3 a year on payment of a nazrana of Rs. 740. Pema made a deed of gift of his interest in this lease to his sons the plaintiffs. On the basis of this lease the plaintiffs filed the present suit alleging that under a private partition Pema had been in possession of 14 biswas 7 dhurs of land and that the defendants had unlawfully dispossessed him. The defendants took a plea that Pema had not paid his share of the nazrana. This plea has been found to be untrue and no longer in issue. They also allege that Pema's rights under the lease were non-transferable. This plea has been discussed by both the Courts below and is challenged in the appeal to this Court The Munsif got...
MatadIn Tewari Vs. Surajbali Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All522; 83Ind.Cas.32
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant arising under the following circumstances. On the 14th of September 1917, Randhir Singh who was an uncle of the plaintiffs and has now been found to be the manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and the plaintiffs executed a perpetual lease of 51 acres of land (plot No.. 148) if favour of the defendant Matadin Tewari In September 1920 the plaintiffs-respondents brought the present suit for. setting aside the lease on the ground that although the property covered by the lease was joint property, Randhir Singh who lived separate from the plaintiffs had no right to give a lease, thereof to the defendant in spite of the prohibition of the plaintiffs. They further alleged that the lease was without consideration.2. The defendant's case in reply was that the family was a joint family and Randhir Singh was the manager thereof, that the lease was to benefit the family as a nazrana was required for re-building the family hou...
Parsotam Vs. Ganpat Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All517; 73Ind.Cas.1012
Gokul Prasad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a portion of a fixed rate tenancy and removal of a house built upon it by the defendant. The defendant pleaded in reply that the construction was not on plaintiff's land, that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the land within 12 years, that he built on the laud with the permission of the zemindar who was in possession, and that in any event the plaintiff's right, if any, on the land had become extinct because of dispossession by the zemindar for more than, sis mouths. Tae Courts below have concurred in dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The First Court expressly held that the suit was barred by six months rule of limitation. It also found that, the defendant had, as a matter of fact, encroached upon a part of the plaintiff's land. These findings have been confirmed on appeal and the plaintiff comes here in second appeal. It is not necessary now to refer to the findings on the issues referre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »