Allahabad Court June 1923 Judgments
Sheo Nandan and ors. Vs. Balgobind Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.647
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendor, Gaya, was a zemindar of patti Subhao. He executed two sale deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 7, respectively. Under tie first sale deed he purported to sell his 2 annas and 8-pies share in the patti, and under the second a number of plots specified therein as fixed-rate holdings. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Sons of Sheo Nandan, defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 7 is his wife. The plaintiffs brought this suit to pre-empt both these transfers on the allegation that they together constituted one transaction in favour of the defendant's family. There was also some dispute as to the actual sale consideration. The plaintiffs alleged that they were co-sharers in the same patti with the vendor and under the custom prevailing in the mahal they were entitled to pre-empt the sale.2. On behalf of the defendants the existence of the custom of pre-emption was denied, it w...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Aisha Bibi Vs. Chhajju Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.776
Daniels, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is a point of law under sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, but as the question appears to me to be quite free from doubt on the language of the Act, I propose to dispose of the appeal at once. The document, the presentation of which is challenged, was executed by Raghunath Das, the general agent of Ram Lal and of the widow of Ganpat Rai, on their behalf. The power-of-attorney which he held authorised him to execute documents on their behalf, and he executed the document under the terms of this power-of-attofney. He then presented it for registration at the Registration Office and it was registered. The plea taken by the appellant in this Court and in the Courts below was that, in order to enable him to present the document it was necessary that he should hold a power-of-attorney authenticated before the Sub-Registrar under the provisions of Section 33. A reference to Section 32 shows that a document may be presented for registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Kapur Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All735
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. On the 9th of April, 1915, a firm, Bhairon Prasad and Mahadeo, borrowed Rs. 2,500 on a promissory note, the money, having been lent by; one Gajadhar. On the-next day the firm borrowed a similar amount from another firm, and both these notes subsequently were purchased by Kanhaiya Lal, the respondent in this matter. On the 10th of August, 1916, Kanhaiya Lal brought a suit for the recovery of the Rs. 5,000 and interest. On the 28th of November, 1916, the suit was compromised by one Mangli Prasad. At that date Mangli Prasad had a younge? brother Phul Chand and a 'still younger brother, by name Suraj Karan, who was a minor. Mangli Prasad, purporting to act as a member of the firm, agreed in writing to pay Rs. 6,120 in certain instalments, assented to the insertion- of the usual default clauses in the compromise and set aside certain immovable property which he declared to be hypothecated to the due discharge of this debt. In the document of compromise...
Tag this Judgment!Santi Lal and anr. Vs. Raj NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All741; 79Ind.Cas.87
Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an application' for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of this Court, dated the 4th of December, 1922. There are materials on the record quite sufficient to show that the value of the subject-matter in dispute between the parties in the proceedings resulting in this Court's order above referred to exceeded Rs. 10,000. This Court did not affirm the decision of the court below. What is objected to is that the order in question is neither a decree nor a final order within the meaning of Section 109(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the order in question is, at any rate, a final order within the meaning of the clause above referred to. Apart from this, it is contended that, under the circumstances, the case ought to be certified as a. fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, merely on the ground that it is an appeal from an order of this Court, and any difficulty as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Ghulam Vs. Sheo Mangal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All460; 84Ind.Cas.639
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this suit was whether the plaintiff was the proprietor of the plots in dispute. The defendants claimed to hold the same as occupancy tenants and alleged that the plaintiff was in cultivatory possession thereof as a sub-tenant on their behalf.2. The Court below found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the proprietor of the lands in suit. Both the parties are admittedly co-sharers in the village by virtue of their purchase of certain fractional shares but the plots in suit were held from before those purchases by Dwarka, the father of the defendants as a tenant from as far back as 30 years. The purchase by the defendants of a fractional share in the village did not terminate their tenancy of the said plots, in succession to Dwarka any more than the purchase of a fractional share by the plaintiff gave him a right to oust the defendants from that tenancy. They are co-sharers in the village and the plaintiff may have a...
Tag this Judgment!Uman Shankar and anr. Vs. Musammat Aisha Khatun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All729
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession as reversioners of Sarjiwan Lal, the alleged last male owner. It was the plaintiffs' case that Sarjiwan Lal who was a separated Hindu died many years ago and on his death Musammat Dulari his widow entered into possession of his estate, that she made a transfer of the property in dispute without any legal necessity in the year 191]. to Chait Ram who, in his turn, on the 15th of March, 1917, sold it to the defendant respondent; that Musammat Dulari died within twelve years of the suit and the plaintiffe are entitled to possession.2. On behalf of the contesting defendant it was denied that Dulari's husband Sarjiwan Lal was separate from his other brothers, and it was further pleaded that Musammat Dulari without any right and title had entered into possession and remained in adverse possession for more than twelve years and had acquired title to the property absolutely. It was also ple...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Umed and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR45All727
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.1. Niranjan, Banwari, Ranjit and Umed were committed to the Court of Session, at Mainpuri, on charges under Sections 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Umed under Sections 148 and 304, Indian Penal Code, and convicted the remainder under Sections 148 and 325. He sentenced Umed to transportation for life under Section 304 and the other three to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325. Umed appealed to this Court. On his appeal being admitted by a learned Judge of this Court, notice was sent to Niranjan, Banwari and Ranjit to show cause why the conviction should not be altered in their case and the sentence enhanced accordingly. Niranian has since died in jail. The notice has been served on Banwari and Ranjit and no cause is shown on their behalf. We, therefore, take up the case of Umed on appeal and the case of Ranjit and Banwari in revision.2. It is proved by the clearest evidence that Bhopal, an elderly Kachhi of Nara...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Nimat-ullah Vs. Musammat Salut-un-nissa Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.768
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order directing the defendant to remove the trees standing on old plot No. 97-13 corresponding with No. 123 new khasra of Mouza Simra Tappa. The parties were co-sharers of the village; but by a partition effected in 1909 the said plot was awarded to the plaintiff and the trees standing thereon were awarded to the defendant. The entire plot No. 97 was apparently a waste land covered by trees. The partition record summoned shows that one of the co-sharers Musammat Amna claimed the entire plot as her separate maqbuza land; but the Assistant Collector held, that the plot in question was not her (sic) land and could not be allotted to her share with the trees standing thereon. That order was upheld on appeal by the Collector. The result thereof was that the land was divided separately from the trees; and some of the trees fell to the share of the defendant; while others fell to the sha...
Tag this Judgment!Umed and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-20-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.858
1. Niranjan, Banwari, Ranjit and Umed were committed to the Court of Session at Mainpuri on charges under Sections 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Umed under Sections 148 and 304 Indian Penal Code, and convicted the remainder under Sections 148 and 305. He sentenced Umed to transportation for life under Section 304 and the other three to five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 325. Umed appealed to this Court. On his appeal being admitted by a learned Judge of this Court notice was sent to Narinjan, Banwari and Ranjit to show cause why the conviction should not be altered in their case and the sentence enhanced accordingly. Niranjan has since died in Jail. The notice has been served on Banwari and Ranjit and no cause is shown on their behalf. We, therefore, take up the case of Umed on appeal and the case of Ranjit and Banwari in revision.2. It is proved by the clearest evidence that Bhopal, an elderly Kachchi of Narayanpur, was mercilessly b...
Tag this Judgment!Mithu Lal and anr. Vs. Sri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924All126; (1923)ILR45All724
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision under the-following circumstances. The suit was one on a pro-note. In the course of the suit the defendant agreed to abide by the oath of one of the plaintiffs, Mithu Lal. On a subsequent date, before the oath could be administered, he wished to withdraw from his application on the ground that Mithu Lal had been won over by the other plaintiff, his son, to swear a false oath. A. witness was put in to prove this fact but both the courts below have concurred in rejecting his evidence as false. The plaintiff Mithu Lal took the required oath, and on the basis of his evidence the learned Munsif decreed the suit. The defendant appealed to the District Judge. The District Judge agreed with the Munsif as to the worthlessness of the evidence of collusion but remanded the case to the Munsif to take further evidence on the facts. On the basis of this evidence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that in reality there was no consideration for t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »