Allahabad Court January 1924 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.
Babu Kanhiya Lal Vs. Ashraf Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All355; 78Ind.Cas.402
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a house which was mortgaged along with another house by Najabat Khan in favour of the defendant-appellant and his brother Madho Prasad in 1892. On the death of Madho Prasad his interest devolved on the defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant brought a suit to enforce his mortgage and got a decree for sale against the present defendants Nos. 2 to 6 as the heirs of Najabat Khan, and in execution thereof he got the two houses aforesaid put up to sale.2. A suit was then brought by the present plaintiffs-respondents other than Musammat Umda Bibi for a declaration that the house now in dispute was used as an Imambara and was waqf property; that the other house was his exclusive property by inheritance from Fateh Khan, and that neither of those houses was liable to sale in execution of the above decree. That suit was dismissed in regard to the house now in dispute on a finding that it was not proved to be waqf property, but decreed...
Bhup NaraIn Rai and ors. Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All193
Stuart, J.1. These nine connected appeals arise out of nine suits for arrears of rent brought against the appellants. It appears that as far back as 1868 certain zamindars in what was known as the taluka Birpur in the Ghazipur district agreed that the predecessors-in-interest of the present appellants should cultivate 96 bighas 19 biswas in the taluka at a certain rent. At the next settlement the area and the rent were increased. As time has gone on the fields held in tenure by these persons have been distributed amongst no less than nine villages and the fields in each village have been amalgamated into a separate area held in occupancy tenure. These appeals arise out of suits for arrears of rent in respect of these nine areas. The main point pressed in appeal by the learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants is that the suits should be dismissed in toto because nine suits have been brought instead of one. His argument is that all these nine areas are one holding and that under the...
Lalman and anr. Vs. Fazal Muhammad Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All200; 78Ind.Cas.115
Stuart, J.1. This appeal is concerned I with the title to a plot of land 1.38 acres J in area bearing a rent of Rs. 25. It raises I points of difficulty. This much appears j to be clear. Bazmir Khan the father of Fazal Muhammad Khan the defendant-respondent sold at some time prior to 1895 a one-third share in the village of Udipur Bhura, Shahjahanpur District, to Khub Chand the father of Lalman plaintiff-appellant. In this share was a field which tras formerly numbered 558/1. The number was changed to 613 at some time prior to 1895. This has been subsequently sub-divided into two numbers 613/1 and 613/2 and is the plot of land in area 138 acres which is now in dispute. In 1895 there was a partition in the village and on a finding of the learned District Judge this No. 613 was at the time of the partition allotted to Bazmir Khan. Although Bazmir Khan had sold a portion of his zamindari ha had retained the remainder and his son Fazal Muhammad Khan is still a zamin-dar in the village and ...
Rani Vs. Manni Lal and ors. and Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All327
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption.2. The plaintiff and the vendor in this case are co-widows and they admittedly are co-sharers in the plot described as grove which has been sold. Both the courts below have decreed the suit holding that there is a custom under which a hissedar karibi is entitled to preference as against other co-sharers and that the present plaintiff comes within the definition of the expression hissedar karibi of the vendor. The defendant transferee is also a co-sharer in the same grove but is not in any way related to the vendor. There is now before us no dispute as to there being a right of pre-emption with regard to the sale-deed. The only question is whether the plaintiff has preference as against the transferees. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that these ladies belong to the same Hindu family and by marriage have become members of the family, they are hi...
Pandit Ish NaraIn Upadhia Vs. Rameshar Lohar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All433; 78Ind.Cas.164
Stuart, J.1. The plaintiff appellant is the zemindar of village Sari. The defendants-respondents are two blacksmiths living in the same village. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from a saiban, a dalan and a shed on the allegation that these were recent constructions upon his land. The defendants are tenants and residents in the village in which they have a house. They carry on business as blacksmiths there. The Munsif found that one of these structures was an old one and dismissed the suit in respect of it. He decreed the blacksmith's ejectment from the two others. The blacksmiths appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge. The zemindar did not appeal in respect of the dismissal of the portion of his suit. The learned Subordinate Judge decided as follows He found that the two structures from which the Munsif had ordered the defendants' ejectment were at least eight years old. He continued, ' I am satisfied that these constructions were in the place of the old ones and so the p...
Manni Lal and ors. Vs. Musammat Rani and Musammat Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All534; 78Ind.Cas.382
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption.2. The plaintiff and the vendor in this case are co-widows and they admittedly are co-sharers in the plot described as grove which has been sold. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit holding that there is a custom under which a ' hissedar karibi ' is entitled to preference as against other co-sharers and that the present plaintiff comes within the definition of the expression hissedar karibi of the vendor. The defendant transferee is also a co-sharer in the same grove but is not in any way related to the vendor. There is now before us no dispute as to there being a right of preemption with regard to the sale-deed. The only question is, whether the plaintiff has preference as against the transferees. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the fact that these ladies belong to the same Hindu family and by marriage have become members of the family, they are hissedars karibi of ea...
Bisal Singh and ors. Vs. Roshan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All373; 78Ind.Cas.265
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. Two persons Someshwar and Drigbijai executed the mortgage on which the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought. The deed was executed on the 4th of June 1907. Someshwar is dead and the mortgagee. Kandhai Lal, is also dead. Kandhai Lal's sons sued Someshwar's sons and Drigbijai for recovery of money on foot of the bond. The defences taken, inter alia, were that the deed had not been properly attested and that it was not properly registered. The lower Appellate Court found that the deed had been properly attested and as to the registration it found that the properties mortgaged included a house in village Ghauspur Khathola, Pargana Chail, which never in fact existed. It is common ground that it was owing to the inclusion of this house in the mortgage-deed that the Sub-Registrar of Chail alis Allahabad had the jurisdiction to register it. The learned District Judge also found, or purported to find, that...
Lala Sunder Lal Vs. Bhup Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.164
Stuart, J.1. The learned District Judge has dismissed these appeal's on the ground that the suits were barred by res judicata. I do not agree with this view. It was decided by an Assistant Collector of the Second Glass in a suit for arrears of rent that the land was the defendants khudkdsht, The question whether this land was of was not the defendants' khudkasht was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating tinder the same title but it was not in issue in a Court competent to try the subsequent suit, 80 the decision in the former case cannot operate as res judicata in the present case. It is unnecessary to say much more. The provisions of Section 199 of the Local Act II of 1901 have no bearing on the matter. It is true that such a decision of an Assistant' Collector of the Second Class, would operate as a decision of the Civil Court in a subsequent suit in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class but it would have no effect ...
Umrao Vs. Lachhman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All321; 79Ind.Cas.217
Lindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. We think this appeal must be allowed in view of the law as laid down in the case of Baldeo Misir v. Ram Lagan Shukul (1923) I.L.R. 45 All. 709.2. The relevant facts are as follows:The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, sued for preemption and apparently admitted that he was not entitled to any preference against the vendee unless he could show that he was a co-sharer in a certain khewat No. 152.3. In the trial court he produced evidence to show that he was a co-sharer in this khewat and he relied upon a deed of sale which had been executed in his favour by one Jawahir on the 10th of January, 1919.4. At the same time this pre-emption suit was being tried in the court of the Munsif, a suit had been brought by the sons of Jawahir to set aside this sale of the 10th of January, 1919. The suit was pending but had not been decided at the time the Munsif gave his decree in the pre-emption suit.5. The Munsif was of opinion that inasmuch as the plaintiff Umrao had ...
Adya Saran Singh Vs. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All561; (1924)ILR46All323
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This is an application of a somewhat unusual character. It is perhaps advisable that we should explain precisely the circumstances under which it comes to be presented. The suit out of which it arose was one filed in the court of an Assistant Collector. The plaintiff in that suit, alleging himself to be the proprietor of certain land in the possession of the defendant as a rent-free grantee, claimed to resume the said grant under the provisions of Section 154 of the Local Tenancy Act (II of 1901). The trial court fixed a large number of issues and decided all of them. In substance it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed and it decreed that relief accordingly. There was an appeal by the defendant to the court of the District Judge, and it is not denied that under the circumstances an appeal lay to that court. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the land in possession of the defendant was not l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »