Allahabad Court March 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.
Prag NaraIn Vs. Mathura Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.575
1. One Ram Bakhsh had four sons three of whom were Lala Ram, Jagan Nath and Ajodhia Prasad. The two plaintiffs to the suit in the first Court were sons of Lala Ram. Musammat Sunder Kunwar widow of Jagan Nath, executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Prag Narain son of Ajodhia Prasad. The sons of Lala Ram sued for a declaration that this deed would be null and void as far as their interests were concerned on the death of Musammat Sunder Kunwar. Both the Subordinate Courts have held that Jagan Nath was separate from his brothers. In that ease on the death of Musammat Sundar Kunwar, the next reversioners would be the plaintiffs and Prag Narain. As stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the only question for decision here is whether a relinquishment by a widow in favour of one out of several reversioners during her life-time can be mantained No authority was quoted in support of his contention that such a transfer was valid. The decree was correctly granted to the plaintiff...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All730; 79Ind.Cas.945
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree for the amount of a bond executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on 22nd November 1919. The bond was executed in lieu of a pro-note previously executed by him on 14th December 1916. One of the defences to the suit was that the defendant was a minor on the date of the execution of the pro-note. The Court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant has not established the fact of his being a minor on that date.2. The appellant contends that the burden of proving that the defendant was not a minor lay on the plaintiff and has cited two oases of this Court of the years 1909 and 1912 respectively in which that view was taken vide Gaya Din v. Musammat Dubari 2 Ind. Cas. 839 : 6 A.L.J. 693, and Kanhaya Lal v. Girdhari Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 956 : 9 A.L.J. 103 The matter appears to us to be concluded against the appellant by the judgment of the Privy Council in Jaganath Preshad, (Raja of Deo) v. Abdullah 45 Ind. Cas. 7700 : 45 C. ...
Tolai Misir and ors. Vs. Muneshar Koeri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.115
1. This was a suit for possession on the ground that the plaintiff was in possession of the plots in suit under a usufructuary mortgage and has been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendants. In the year 1914 the defendants executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff of certain sir and khudkasht plots. This transaction was not in itself illegal but upon its execution there arose in favour of the defendants by operation of law, an ex-proprietary tenancy in the sir plots. The defendants did not, however, claim this tenancy. They allowed the plaintiff to take actual possession of the land without opposition and the plaintiff remained in possession for six years. In the year 1920 the defendants paid up a portion of the mortgage money and by agreement with the plaintiff took possession of so much of the land as corresponded to the amount paid up. They also, however, according to the allegations in the plaint which are not now disputed, dispossessed the plaintiff of the remai...
Hira Lal Vs. Hoti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All720; 79Ind.Cas.560
Mukerji, J.1. In this appeal the respondent is not represented. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He brought a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent for, a period of three years, namely, Babi of 1324 Fasli, complete 1325 and 1326 Faslis and Khar if 1327 Fasli. He showed in his claim that his claim in respect of 1324 Fasli was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 Uswas, In 1325 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas, 12 biswas. In 1326 Fasli it was for a holding of 33 bighas 12 biswas and in 1327 Fasli it was for a holding of 17 bighas, 17 biswas. The rent alleged varied in different years. The defendant contended in his written statement that it was not open to the plaintiff to join a claim for occupancy and non-occupancy holdings, that is to say, he could not combine suits in respect of different engagements. This plea found favour with both the Courts below.2. The Court of first insfcance dismissed the suit in toto but the learned Ju...
Shib Deo Misra and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All79; (1924)ILR46All637
1. This was a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession on the allegation that the plaintiff No. 1 is the reversionary heir of Kallu Misra, deceased, the last male owner of the property. Plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 are transferees from plaintiff No. 1. In the plaint it was alleged that on the death of Kallu Misra, his widow, Musammat Mohini, entered into possession as a Hindu widow for her life, that she unlawfully made various transfers and ultimately died on the 15th of December, 1907. The suit as brought was just within limitation of this date as the Courts were closed on the 15th and 16th of December, 1919. The defendant No. 1 claimed to be the adopted son of Kallu Misra. The other defendants were transferees either from Musammat Mohini or from the defendant No. 1, who are now in possession of the bulk of the property in dispute.2. On behalf of the defendants there were several pleas taken. There was a denial of the pedigree set up by the plaintiffs. There was...
Chob Singh Vs. Daryai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All915; 82Ind.Cas.594
Mukerji, J.1. These two connected Appeals Nos. 1524 and 1525 of 1922 may be disposed of by the same judgment.2. Two different plaintiffs brought two different suits out of which these two appeals have arisen for the ejectment of the same set of tenants from lands in two different mahals, except for this difference, the case is the same in both the appeals.3. Two points require to be decided. One is whether the appeals, when lodged before the learned District Judge of Mainpuri, ought to have been admitted as within time and should not have been dismissed as barred by limitation. The second is whether, in the circumstances, the defendants-respondents are liable to be ejected.4. On the first point it appears that the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment failed in the Court of the Assistant Collector. The suits were suits for ejectment of a tenant under Section 58 of the Tenancy Act. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that they were under-proprietors and could not be ejected. The suits having b...
Aidal Singh Vs. Gyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All615; 79Ind.Cas.318
Daniels, J.1. This is a suit by a tenant against his landlord and a person claiming under his landlord to recover possession of an ex-proprietary holding. It is on the face of it a suit of the nature described in Section 79 of the Tenancy Act, and as such not cognizable by the Civil Court, and the Court below has so held. The appellant disputes this view.2. Tikam Singh was an ex-proprietary tenant. He died three years before the suit leaving two illegitimate sons, one of whom is dead and the other is a defendant in this case. Tikam Singh in his life-time agreed to pay an enhanced rate of rent. After his death the zemindars recognised his sons as tenants and the latter have been in possession of the holding on payment of rent. The plaintiff is a brother of Tikam Singh and sues the zemindars and Tikam Singh's surviving son to recover possession of the holding. The case is clearly one under Section 79 and the fact that the zemindars did not defend the suit is immaterial. The nature of the...
The Municipal Board of Bareilly Vs. Hafiz Ala Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All669; 79Ind.Cas.567
1. This is a reference tinder Section 162(1) of the Municipalities Act from the District Magistrate of Bareilly, who seeks guidance as to the principle upon which certain named gentlemen should be taxed in the notified area of Aonla. In that area there is the following rule governing it: 'A tax on all persons residing or carrying on any trade, calling or vocation, or owning property within, the notified area of Aonla will be levied according to their circumstances and property, provided that in case of non-residents the tax will be levied with regard only to the value of their property and trade within the notified area' The question upon which decision is sought has arisen in this way. There are certain gentlemen whose native town is Aonla, They have gone out into the world, principally Calcutta, where they have established business and where they have established house-holds; but they return to their native district and to their ancestral family houses either for rest or an occasions...
Chhote Lal Vs. Kedar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All703; (1924)ILR46All565; 84Ind.Cas.289
Mukerji and Daniels, JJ.1. The facts of this case are briefly these. One Kedar Nath of Agra was adjudicated insolvent in Calcutta under the Insolvent Debtors Act, on the 4th of September, 1906. On the 11th of January, 1910, Kedar Nath obtained an order for personal discharge, but he continued to be an adjudicated insolvent so far as the property was concerned. In 1921 Kedar Nath sued one Chhote Lal for recovery of a certain sum of money on the ground that it was due to him for certain services rendered to Chhote Lal. He obtained a decree on the 19th of January, 1922. On the 11th of February, 1922, Kedar Nath sold the-decree to Baijnath. Chhotfe Lal filed an appeal against the decree and made an application to the court for the stay of execution pending the appeal on the ground, inter alia, that Kedar Nath was an undischarged insolvent. It appears, however, that the parties came to terms on the 22nd of February, 1922. A compromise was filed in the execution department by which, on payme...
Raja Udairaj Singh Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All553; 88Ind.Cas.212
Grimwood Mears, Kt., C.J. and Piggott, J.1. This was a suit brought by Raja Udairaj Singh of Kashipur against the Secretary of State for India in Council in which certain reliefs were sought by way of declaration. Those reliefs may be set forth at once in the precise language of the plaint. They are as follows:(a) A declaration 'to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to hold the domain of Barhapura for all time as a revenue free and untaxable domain in perpetual succession.'(b)A declaration 'that the imposition of 1874 is illegal and invalid as against himself.'2. We do not quite understand why the second relief has been worded in this particular form. What the plaintiff desires to challenge is the levy of a cess on the property described as 'the domain of Barhapura' under the provisions of the N.W.P. Local Estes Act (Act No. XVIII of 1874), which came into force on the 6th of April of that year. The record before us shows that a cess was levied upon this property immediately on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »