Allahabad Court February 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.
Muhammad Sharif and ors. Vs. Nazir Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All453
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. The plaintiffs and. defendants in this suit are both co-sharers of mauza Nandpur. The plaintiffs applied for partition under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, Act No. III of 1901, United Provinces. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were parties to those proceedings. Subsequently the plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendants alleging that they were in exclusive possession, and had been in exclusive possession for a long time, of certain plots of land in the village, the numbers of which are given in the plaint. They said that they had sown wheat and barley on these plots, and that the defendants had trespassed and wrongfully cut the crop. They asked for a decree for exclusive possession of the plots and for Rs. 365 damages, the value of the crop misappropriated by the defendants. All these plots were included in the lands of which partition was pending. The defendants in their first plea urged that the suit was barred by Section 233(k) of the ...
Sohan Ahir Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.640
Daniels, J.1. The point taken in the revision is this. The applicant Sohan was charged with two offences under Sections 326 and 148, Indian Penal Code. The learned Deputy Magistrate convicted him on both charges and sentenced him to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 326 148, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 148 but maintained the conviction under sectipn 326, Indian Penal Code. Holding that the sentence passed was not excessive, for the offence under Section 326, he uphhheld it.2. The argument in revision is that where a judgment is framed in the form in which the Deputy Magistrate's judgment is framed it must be taken that the Magistrate intended to impose a separate sentence of nine months under each charge. In my opinion this is not what the phrase used means. Where a Magistrate convicts under two sections and intends to pass concurrent sentences it is a very common though somewhat slovenly metho...
Musammat Mubarak-un-nissa and anr. Vs. Muhammad Raza Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.174
1. The dispute in this appeal relates to the property of Sardar Khan. Who died on the 24th of September 1907, leaving two daughters, Mst. Mubarak-un-nissa and Mst. Bismilla Begam, who are the plaintiffs, and three grandsons Muhammad Raza Khan, Maqsud Khan and Daud Khan by a predeceased son, who are the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. He also left a brother Mahmud Khan and a nephew, Nazar Muhammad Khan, who was the son of one of his predeceased brothers. Mahmud Khan had two sons, Usman Khan and Chidda Khan. The plaintiff Mst. Bismilla Begam was married to Usman Khan, who died in the life-time of Mahmud Khan,2. On the death of Sardar Khan his property was entered in the names of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiffs took no steps to get their names entered in the Revenue papers in regard to the share of the property, now claimed by them. Their case was that the property in dispute devolved on the death of Sardar Khan on the plaintiffs to the extent of a two-thirds share and on Mahmu...
Sheikh Nazir Ahmad and ors. Vs. Sheikh Muhammad Sharif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.345
1. The plaintiffs and defendants in this suit are both co-sharers of Mauza Nandput. The plaintiffs applied for partition under the provisions of the Laud Revenue Act, Act No. Ill of 1901, U.P. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were parties to those proceedings. Subsequently, the plaintiffs brought this suit against the defendants alleging that they were in exclusive possession, and had been in exclusive possession for a long time, of certain plots of land in the village, the numbers of which are given in the plaint. They said that they had sown wheat and barley on these plots, and that the defendants had trespassed and wrongfully cut the crop. They asked for a decree for exclusive possession of the plots and for Rs. 165 damages, the value of the crop misappropriated by the defendants. All these plots were included in the lands of which partition was pending. The defendants in their first plea urged that the suit was barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. The learned Mun...
Ramachari and anr. Vs. Sadho Saran Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.405
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. They instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of property, being a fixed-rate tenancy by way of redemption. They succeeded in the Court of first instance; but the learned District Judge in appeal held that the mortgage had not been proved.2. It appears that there were ten defendants in the case and out of them only five are in possession. The defendants are admitted by the only contesting defendant (No.3) to be the descendants of the persons in whose favour the alleged mortgage was executed. The evidence was that the lands were the fixed-rate tenancies of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and that, although the plaintiffs were the descendants of the alleged mortgagor, there being no mortgage, the suit must fail.2. The Court of first instance pointed out that in the Settlement of 1840, the name of the grandfather of the plaintiffs was recorded as the fixed-rate tenant. The alleged mortgage was executed in 1872. The orig...
Khudayar Khan Vs. Rahat Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All446; 87Ind.Cas.415
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal is without force. The plaintiff sued to preempt certain property situate in certain mahals in which he was a co-sharer. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to preference by reason of his being a near kinsman of the vendor. The defendant-vendee was also a co-sharer in the mahal, and his defence was that he was also related to the vendor. The plaintiff relied on an alleged custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1882 and that prepared after the partition of the village in question in 1911. Both these wajib-ul-arzes gave a preferential right to a near kinsman of the vendor who was also a co-sharer in the mahal or patti in which the property sold was situated. The Court of first instance found that the custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of 1882 ceased to be enforceable after the partition and that the plaintiff could only succeed on the ground that there was a contract of pre-emption entered in the new wajib-ul-arz which was prepared at the time of par...
Kanhaiya Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All376; (1924)ILR46All372
Walsh and Ryves, JJ.1. This is a very pretty legislative knot. A dispute has arisen between two alleged members of a family over an apparently substantial estate left by Musammat Basanti, the widow of Bansidhar deceased. Some portion of the property consists of uncollected rents, that is to say, arrears of rent, and also of rents accruing due from the occupiers of various tenancies held under the deceased. Musammat Basanti made a will, which, if it is a valid will, can, on proper proceedings being taken, be admitted to probate. The present applicant, in September, 1922, applied for a succession certificate under the Succession Certificate Act, claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased lady, and that he was desirous of collecting the rent from the tenants, who would be protected in paying their rents to him in the event of his obtaining a succession certificate from the court. Nor could he obtain a decree in any suit against the tenants for rents due to the deceased's esta...
Ram Sarup Vs. Hardeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All396; 79Ind.Cas.429
Mukerji, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are briefly these:2. There is an enclosure No.43, in which there are, it seems, several rooms or houses. The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court below, has been found to be the owner of the entire enclosure. Two of the rooms or buildings in this enclosure are the subject-matter of the suit. In a portion of this enclosure, the defendants and their predecessors were living. It has been found by the Court below that their possession was permissive. The parties, it appears, quarreled and fought over the possession of the defendants and one of the parties on the side of the defendants sustained grievous hurt. There was a criminal case and a compromise was arrived at on the 5th of June 1918. It was embodied on a paper bearing stamp-duty of eight-annas and was not registered. It was stated in the compromise-deed that room No. 126 was given up by the defendants and that they were given room No. 129 in lieu of the same...
Kanhaiya Alias Moti Lal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.363
1. This is a very pretty legislative knot. A dispute has arisen between two alleged members of a family over an apparently substantial estate left by Musammat Basanti, the widow of Bansidhar, deceased. Some portion of the property consists of uncollected rents, that is to say, arrears of rent, and also of rents accruing due from the occupiers of various tenancies held under the deceased. Musammat Basanti made a Will, which if it is a valid Will, can, on proper proceedings being taken be admitted to probate. The present applicant, in September 1922, applied for a succession certificate under the Succession Certificate Act, claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased lady, and that he was desirous of collecting the rent from the tenants, who would be protected in paying their rents to him in the event of his obtaining a succession certificate from the Court. Nor could he obtain a decree in any suit against the tenants for rent due to the deceased's estate without producing a ...
Bhawani Prasad Misir Vs. Ram Sunder and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All911; 79Ind.Cas.353
Daniels, J.1. This is a second appeal in a case in which both Courts have declared the plaintiff's right to redeem certain mortgages and directed him to do so. The plaintiff claimed to redeem as the reversioner of one Badal and one of the main defences to the suit was that the plaintiff was not the son of Bhikha through whom he claimed but was the illegitimate son of Bhikha's widow Musammat Pargashi. The plaintiff called one Dukharan Dube as a witness in support of his case. When this witness was called the defendants agreed that if the witness would eat kachcha food cooked by Musammat Pargashi the suit should be decreed against them. This was on the 14th December 1921. On the same date the agreement of the parties was reduced to writing by the Court and signed by the defendants including the present appellant Bhawani Prasad. Dukharan expressed his willingness to eat foot cooked by Musammat Pargashi and arrangements were made for food to be cooked by her and eaten by the witness on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »