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.
Ram Dial Vs. Sher Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.358
Ryves, J.1. The plaintiff, Ram Dial, sued to recover money due to him on a bond executed by the defendant it. He filed his plaint on the 15th May 1922, which was the first day of Limitation. The Munsarim made a report hat although the suit had been properly valued the Court-fee paid was insufficient. There up on the Court gave the plaintiff time up to the 19th May to make good the deficiency he deficiency was made good on the 17th May and the plaint was then registered. At the trial the defendant pleac1ed, a most other things, that the suit was barred by arbitrator. The Court found on the merits for the plaintiff, but held that the suit was barred by limitation on the authority Jainti Prasad v. Bechu Singh 15 A. 65 : A.W.N. (1893) 29 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.s.) 758. The plaintiff in revision urges that that decision is no longer law and that, under Order VII, Rule 11, Clause (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court had power in its di...
Panna Lal and anr. Vs. Bohra Panna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All50; 74Ind.Cas.481
1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit brought by some Managers of the Ram Lila Committee for a declaration of a right of easement and for the demolition of certain buildings erected by defendant No. 2 with the permission of defendant No. 1 on a plot of land No. 607. The plaintiffs also claimed an injunction.2. The point raised by the plaintiffs was that the Hindus of Karhal used to hold Bharatmilap and, in order to get to plots Nos. 604 and 606, they used to pass over plot No. 607, and that, because of that user, they had acquired a right of easement of passage over plot No. 607.3. The contention of the defendant was that Bharatmilap processions, after passing over the public road, passed over plot No. 608 and from that to the Chabutra in No. 604. The defendants did not contest the plaintiff's right to celebrate the Bharatmilap on plot No. 604 or 606; what they said was that the plaintiffs or their predecessors had not acquired any right of easement over plot No....
Amin-ud-dIn and anr. Vs. Abdul Shakoor and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All556; 73Ind.Cas.460
Daniels, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for ejectment which was filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. The defendant set up proprietary right in the land. Section 199 of the Tenancy Act requires the Court in such cases either to refer the defendants to the Civil Court or to decide the question of title itself, unless the question has already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The issue between the parties is whether the question of title had previously been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction whose decision is conclusive in the present suit. The lower Appellate Court has answered this question in the affirmative. It appears that in the year 1919 the plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent against the defendants in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. The defendants alleged that they were not tenants but had a proprietary right. The Assistant Collector framed the following issue, 'w...
Sheikh Chhuttan and anr. Vs. Jwala Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All64; 73Ind.Cas.602
Daniels, J.1. This appeal is brought against an order which purports to be trade under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, in Suit No. 789 of 1907 filed by the respondent, Jwala Prasad, against Sewa Singh and certain other defendants.2. In that suit Jwala Prasad caused the produce of 37 plots to be attached. The present appellant, Sheikh Chhuttan, asked that the sale of the crops might be stayed on account of a declaratory suit which he was filing. He did file such a suit against Jwala Prasad and certain third parties on 13th April 1920 for a declaration that the crops in dispute were not liable to sale under Jwala Parasad's decree but were the property of tenants cultivating from him on a batai rent so that he, Sheikh Chhuttan, was entitled to half the crops. Sheikh Chhuttan's suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. While this suit was pending an application was made by him to have the crops made over to a sipurdar and they were made over to two persons, Khumani, who was a ser...
Shaikh Abdur Raoof Vs. Bachchoo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All532; 73Ind.Cas.495a
Daniels, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether it is within the competence of a Lambardar to give permission to a tenant to erect a kucha house on land belonging to the joint patti. The Court below has held that he can do so and has pointed out that there are no less than 30 co-sharers in the patti and that unless such authority is recognised in the lambardar it would be practically impossible for a valid permission ever to be given at all. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the enumeration of the duties of a Lambardar contained in the Board's Circular No. 8-III, reproduced at page 141 of Mr. Agarwala's Commentary on the Land Revenue Act. An enumeration of the duties of the lambardar cannot, however, be considered decisive on a question of the powers which the Lambardar can exercise as the implied agent-of the co-sharers under Section 194 of the Tenancy Act. There is admittedly no direct authority on the question at issue but the decision of the Court...
Lal Baijnath Singh Vs. Thakur Chandrapal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All553; 73Ind.Cas.529
Daniels, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to a grove No. 168 in Mauza Ghatampur in the Allahabad District. The grove was planted by the ancestors of the second and third defendants with the permission of the zemindar on payment of nazrana and they occupied the land as grove-holders. They have transferred their rights in the grove by a sale-deed to the first defendant Chandarpal Singh. The plaintiff-appellant Lai Baijnath Singh thereupon instituted the present suit on the allegation that the transfer was unlawful and that it gave the zemindar a right to recover possession of the land. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. They held that under the general law a person who plants a grove with the permission of the zemindar acquires a transferable interest in the trees and that the plaintiff has failed to prove any custom disentitling the defendants from transferring their rights.2. Two points arise in the appeal, (1) whether a custom forbidding grove-holders to transfer the ...
Pudai Singh Vs. Brij Mangal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All612; 73Ind.Cas.654
Walsh, J.1. I have heard the whole of the evidence of the witness called by the plaintiff read. I find myself unable to say either that his evidence was inadmissible or irrelevent or necessarily incredible. No body objected to its admissibility and, what is more, the defendants' Counsel cross-examined the man at some length. He was illiterate, but the story he told was that, being on business apparently as a debtor, at the mortgagee's premises, he and certain other persons were asked to attest this document of which he gave a fair account. It may be a pure invention but that is the business of the Trial Court to decide. The Trial Court has decided that it is true. I do not know how else a litigant can give the contents of a missing document except by calling a witness who swears both to its existence and to its contents, and the fact that the man is unable to read is merely a fact which goes to the credibility of his oath that he remembers the transaction because there are many people ...
Ghansham Singh Vs. Bhola Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All490; (1923)ILR45All506
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott, Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This appeal was referred to a Bench of five Judges to decide whether the appellant's right of appeal was barred by what has been called ''the principle of res judicata,' in accordance with a preliminary objection taken by the respondent, or, in other words, whether the ruling in Zaharia v. Debia (1910) I.L.R. 33 All. 51 applied to it, or whether, as the appellant contended, it was governed by the riding in Damodar Das v. Shea Ram Das (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 730 and in effect, therefore, whether the latter decision was correctly reported as having been overruled by the former.2. We are of opinion that there is no such bar and that the preliminary objection fails. The facts are simple. The plaintiff sues upon a mortgage executed by the defendant in his favour, on the 28th of May, 1914, and claims re-payment of the principal amount secured, with interest thereon at the contract rate, or, in the alternative, sale of the mortgaged property...
Sheo Shankar Vs. Kedar Nath Singh and Kashi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All515
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff respondent for possession of a seven-storied house No. 7/27 called Chhoti Haveli situated near the golden temple in Benares. This house had been purchased by Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar, the widow of one of the pandas of the temple, in 1898. She died on the 7th of January, 1904. On the 30th of December, 1903, she had made a will in favour of the plaintiff and letters of administration were, after death, obtained by the guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the property both as adopted Ron of the lady and also by virtue of the will. The claim on the basis of adoption was repelled by the court below, but the claim has been decreed by the learned subordinate judge on the ground that the property belonged to Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar at her death and that the plaintiff, by virtue of her will, has acquired it. On the 2nd of August, 1903, Musammat Lakhpat Kunwar execu...
Ram Chandar and anr. Vs. Muhammad Nur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923All591; (1923)ILR45All545
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the two minor sons of Suraj Prasad for a declaration that they are the owners of a two thirds share in the house in dispute, which was sold at auction in execution of a simple money decree against the father. It appears that Suraj Prasad executed a simple money bond on the 6th of May, 1913, in order to pay interest on a previous mortgage-deed. A. suit was brought by the obligee on the basis of the bond and a, decree was obtained against Suraj Prasad. In execution of that decree the house in question was attached and was put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself namely, Pahlad Das. In spite of getting a formal delivery of possession Pahlad Das was dispossessed and he had to bring a separate suit for the possession of the house, which was decreed in 1919. On the 2nd of June, 1919, Pahlad Das executed a sale-deed of the property in question in favour of Janki Pande, which sale was pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »