Allahabad Court November 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.
Ali Hammad Vs. Ghurpattar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All454; 85Ind.Cas.578
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff in the Court of first instance is the appellant here. He brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, praying for a declaration of his title to a large tract of land the largest portion of which was covered with wood, water, etc., and in the alternative, for possession. He said in his plaint that once many years ago the parties were co-sharers, that there was a partition in 1889 and the entire tract of land fell to the plaintiff's share and was formed into one complete mahal. He further stated that a short time before the institution of the suit, that is to say in 1918, the defendants had a partition case among themselves and as a result of that they divided the land. He further alleged that on the 24th of October, 1918, the defendants interfered with his possession. The suit was instituted on the 10th of December, 1918. The defence was that the title was with the defendants and at any rate they had acquired it by having completed twelve years' adv...
Ram Charan Vs. Lal Bihari Varma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All752; 85Ind.Cas.676
1. We think that this appeal is concluded by the findings of fact.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that the goods in the shop of his brother really belonged to him and, as such, were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained by a creditor of his brother.3. The First Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge of Cawnpore has allowed it. It is really purely a question of fact whether the alleged sale by one brother to another was a real sale and not a sham transaction in order to defraud or delay the creditors. Now the learned Judge has noted some very suspicious circumstances in the case which would lead one ordinarily to infer that the transaction was not a genuine one, but, bearing all these circumstances in mind, he has come to a very definite conclusion that the sale was a perfectly valid transaction. What happened was this; one brother agreed to buy the property of his brother and to pay all his creditors...
Mahfuz Ali Khan Vs. Seth Radha Kishen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All297; 85Ind.Cas.477
Ryves, J.1. The facts that give rise to this appeal are as follows:One Mahfuz Ali Khan was the owner of certain zamindary property. He married first Musammat Sharifan and then Musammat Ijari. Musammat Sharifan died leaving her surviving a son, Mashuq Ali. On behalf of Mashuq Ali, who is a minor, a demand was made for the dower debt due to his mother from Mahfuz Ali Khan. As this dower debt was far more than the property was worth, it appears that Musammat Ijari also put in a claim for dower on her own account. The matter was referred to arbitration and the arbitrators after reciting the circumstances under which they were called upon to make their award, came to the conclusion that both Mashuq Ali and Musammat Ijari were entitled to dower; but that, if their claims were satisfied, the property will be wholly insufficient to satisfy their claims. They, therefore, decided that the best thing to do was to agree that the property, should from the date of the award be construed the property...
Makkhan Lal and anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal (Minor Through Mt. Anand Kishori ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All688
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to certain zamindari and house property situated in the Budaun and Moradabad districts. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the said property belonged to Rai Baijnath, their maternal grandfather. The plaintiffs are the sons of Mt. Kashmiro, the sole surviving daughter of Rai Baijnath.2. Rai Baijnath died on the 13th February, 1912. He had a son, Ram Sarup, and two daughters : Mt. Kashmiro and Mt. Nannhi. Sam Sarup died in the lifetime of his father on the 18fch July, 1910 leaving a widow Mt. Bhagwandei. Mt. Nannhi died some time in 1889. She was married to Chandu Lal, by whom she had a son Rajbahadur. At the time of the death of Baijnath, Mt. Kashmiro, his daughter, and Rajbahadur, the son of his other daughter Mt. Nannhi, were the only persons alive. Rajbahadur died on the 6th June, 1912, leaving a widow Mt. Anand Kishori and two minor sons, Kanhaiya Lal and Jagmohan Lai. In the mutation proceedings, which followed the death of Baijnath an a...
Mt. Sham Devi Vs. Bhagwat Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All353; 85Ind.Cas.584
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff of the Court of first instance is the appellant in this Court. She brought, as a purchaser of the equity of redemption, a suit for redemption of a mortgage alleged to have been executed in 1843. The suit succeeded in the Court of first instance but the learned District Judge on appeal dismissed it. He came to two conclusions, viz., the appellant had failed to prove that she had any subsisting title to the property at the date of the suit and that the suit was barred by time. In appeal, it is contended that both the findings are incorrect. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the finding as to title was a finding of fact and was binding on this Court. On the question whether the finding of the learned Judge was a finding of fact, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the facts were all admitted, the interpretation of the documents was all admitted, but the argument of the learned Judge was faulty and it was open to this C...
Mt. Mahtab-un-nissa Vs. Rafaqat Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All474
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an Execution First Appeal arising from an objection raised to the attachment of certain property. The respondent is a purchaser of a decree for dower which had been passed in favour of Saiyid-un nissa deceased against Ali Hasan her husband. Ali Hasan died during the execution proceedings and Saiyid-un-nissa brought on the record the present appellant Mt. Mahtab-un-nissa and her daughters treating them as the 'heirs of the deceased Ali Hasan.' The first application for execution which was made against these parsons was ultimately struck off. A subsequent application was put in and these persons were again treated as the heirs of Ali Hasan deceased Mt. Mahtab un-nissa put in an objection that part of the property sought to be attached belonged to her exclusively as it had been transferred to her under a registered sale deed executed on the 9th of April, 1913, by Ali Hasan in her favour for a sum of Rs. 7,000. The decree-holder by way of reply put in the plea inter ...
Ram Rehka and ors. Vs. Ram Sunder Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All295a
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur. The only matter that he had to try in the action was with reference to a sale-deed for Rs. 8,500, which had been entered into by the father of the plaintiff on several grounds. The plaintiff, the son, made the usual regrettable charges against his father, which seem to be a feature in many of these actions. Whatever attempts he made to prove the drinking and other alleged disgraceful and improvident acts of the father, were disbelieved by the Court. He comes before us as a plaintiff-appellant entitled to a very little sympathy, especially when one considers the fact that at the time of the action the father was residing apparently on terms of complete harmony with his family. The father did not go into the witness-box. The plaintiff denied at first any indebtedness at all of the father, but eventually admitted that there was an indebtedness of Rs. 6,500. That left in dispute to items only, one of Rs. 1,500 and...
Ram Rekha and ors. Vs. Ram Sunder Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.834
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur. The only matter that he had to try in the action was with reference to a sale-deed for Rs. 8,500, which had been entered into by the father of the plaintiff on several grounds. The plaintiff, the son, made the usual regrettable charges against his father which seem to be a feature in many of these actions. Whatever attempt he made to prove the drinking and other alleged disgraceful and improvident acts of the father, were disbelieved by the Court. He comes before us as a plaintiff-appellant entitled to a very little sympathy, especially when one considers the fact that at the time of the action the father was residing apparently on terms of complete harmony with his family. The father did not go into the witness-box. The plaintiff denied at first any indebtedness at all of the father, but eventually admitted that there was an indebtedness of Rs. 6,500. That left in dispute two items only, one of Rs. 1,500 and ...
Rafat-un-nissa Begam Vs. Hussaini Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All215; 84Ind.Cas.786
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants to a suit in which a certain lady, Nawab Hussaini Begam as plaintiff, sought to enforce certain rights alleged to exist in her favour under a mortgage-deed purporting to have been executed on the 6th of December 1918, by one Mt. Hashmat-un-nissa. The said executant died on the 13th of December 1918. Under Muhatn-madan Law her heirs were her two brothers, Aziz-ud-din and Sami-ud-din, and her sister Mt. Rafat-un-nissa. It is this sister who is the appellant before us. It so happens, however, that Md. Hashmat-un-nissa had also left a will, under which she bequeathed the one-third share in her estate, over which she had power of disposition under the Muhammadan Law, to two persons named Mushtaq Ali and Murshid Ali. All these paraons were impleaded as defendants to the suit. Various defences wara raised in the trial Court, all of which have been overruled, and the suit has been decreed against all the defendants. As already noted, the...
Kharak Singh Vs. Laccham Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All293a
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is a reference under Rule 17 of the Kumaun Rules, arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by the plaintiff in the Court of an Assistant Commissioner in Kumaun. The Assistant Commissioner heard the suit on the 24th August, 1921 and reserved his judgment. On the 14th of February, 1922 the Assistant Commissioner signed, dated and delivered his judgment in the absence of the parties or their pleaders and without previous notice to them and he directed that the order passed should be communicated to the parties through the patwari. The judgment directed the plaintiff to deposit the pre-emption money within three months of that date, but the plaintiff was not served with a notice of its delivery till the 25th of February, 1922. He filed an appeal from the decree about the amount of the consideration money made payable by him, and about his costs, but his appeal was dismissed except about costs on the 10th May, 1922. On the 25th of May, 192i he deposited the mone...