Allahabad Court April 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.
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Jagar Nath Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All759; 85Ind.Cas.180
Daniels, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order granting a review in a Small Cause Court, case. But for the suit having been tried by a Small Cause Court an appeal would have lain under Order XLVII, Rule 7. The ground of revision is that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow a review. The suit was one on a note-of-hand. The learned Munsif originally dismissed the suit on the ground that he was unfavorably impressed with the plaintiffs evidence and that the plaintiff's witness was a chance witness. The defendant in his evidence had asserted that he was illiterate but this fact is not referred to in the judgment. A month afterwards the plaintiffs produced a copy of a vakalatnama signed by the defendant and asked for a review on this ground. The learned Munsif admitted it and because he considered that the defendant had lied m saying that he was illiterate he proceeded to decree the claim and to accept the plaintiff's evidence which he had previously disbelieved. The ...
Basu and ors. Vs. Musammat Nanhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All920; 79Ind.Cas.951
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a share in an occupancy holding and for damages. The suit was dismissed after a careful trial by the Munsif bub decreed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and the defendants appeal. The case involves one question of fact and two of law. The original title depended on the question of fact whether the plaintiff's father was joint with or separate from the other branches of the family. The Courts below differed on this point. The finding of the lower Appellate Court which must be accepted is that the plaintiff's father was separate and, therefore, his share descended to his daughter.2. The main question of law is one of limitation. The suit is governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove possession within twelve years. She alleged in her plaint that she was in possession of the share till the defendants took wrongful possession at the commencement of Fasli...
Mst. Champa Kunwar Vs. Tulshi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All921; 79Ind.Cas.954
Daniels, J.1. This was a suit, brought by the plaintiff zemindar for possession of a house. The Court below, overruling the Trial Court, has dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff appeals. The house was occupied by a tenant who has made a gift of it to the defendant. One of the defences was that the defendant's vendor had quitted the village twenty years before and that the house escheated to the zemindar. The Court below remitted issues to the Trial Court. The findings on those issues were in favour of the appellant. No objections wore taken within the time allowed but the learned Additional Judge nevertheless went into evidence and overruled the findings of the Trial Court on the facts. There is some authority in favour of his right to do so but I am constrained to remark that if such a practice became common the procedure of allowing a time within which objections to the findings must be taken would be reduced be a useless farce.2. However there is no need to go into this question as...
Ram Chander and anr. Vs. Musammat Bhagwati Alias Bhagwan Dei and anr. ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All937; 79Ind.Cas.590
1. The sole question involved in this appeal is the interpretation of a clause of the sale-deed.2. The facts are these: The predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs obtained a sale-deed from some of the defendants and the pre-decessors-in-title of others on 24th January 1907 for a sum of Rs. 6,500. It was stated in the sale-deed that the property was subject to only one encumbrance of Rs. 4,000. It was further stated that there was no other encumbrance, and if any party either as a co-sharer or as an encumbrancer laid a claim and if, as the result of such a claim, any portion of the property was lost, the vendors would indemnify the vendees to the extent of the whole of the purchase-money in case the whole of the property was lost, or in the case of a partial loss, to the extent of a proportionate amount of the purchase-money.3. What happened later on was this: A certain lady, Musammat Parbati, brought a suit for the recovery of a large sum of money by sale of the property sold on foot ...
Bidiya Misir and anr. Vs. Musammat Daryai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.566
Dalal, J.1. I agree with the view of law taken by the lower Appellate Court. One Achbaibar, died and the zemindars put his daughter-in-law in possession as an occupancy tenant. The plaintiffs went to the CiVil Court to dispossess the daughter-in-law of Achhaibar on the ground that they were entitled to succeed Achhaibar in the occupancy holding and not the daughter-in-law. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to choose jurisdiction of Court by the nature of their allegations. The Court has to see the remedy which the plaintiffs really desire. As pointed out by a Bench of this Court in Badri Kasodhan v. Sarju Misir 22 Ind. Cas. 668 : 36 A. 65 : 12 A.L.J. 29, the provisions of Section 79 of the Tenancy Act apply to cases where there has been a constructive as well as an actual or physical ejectment of a tenant from his tenancy. It is explained there that the principle seems to be that where a person, claiming to 11have succeeded to a tenancy by right of inheritance, finds that on endeavour...
Palati Rai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All564; 84Ind.Cas.560
Dalal, J.1. Eight persons have appealed from their conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code of committing a dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge concurring with the unanimous opinion of all the four assessors, held the appellants to be guilty. Dacoity was committed in a market and all the appellants were known to the shopkeepers. Their names were promptly mentioned in the first report. There is nothing that can be urged in favour of the appellants.2. A point of law was raised as regards one appellant Palati Rai. He was produced before a Magistrate to have his statement recorded as a confession on tender of a pardon. The Magistrate tendered pardon to him but the proceedings indicate that the pardon was not accepted by him. The learned Counsel here argued that the case of Palati Rai came within the provisions of Section 339 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, Palati Rai could not be tried without a certificate from the Public Prosecutor and in all events could not be jointly tried...
Gajadhar Vs. Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All551; 80Ind.Cas.684
Walsh, Acting C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench having been amended during the argument is as follows: 'whether a time-barred debt can constitute a valid antecedent debt as consideration for a sale-deed given by a father of a joint Hindu family alienating joint ancestral family property?'2. I entertain no doubt that the question ought to be answered in the affirmative and I do not propose to add to the reasons given by my brothers.Piggott, J.3. This question has been referred to a Full Bench by reason of a conflict in authority, understood to exist between the decision in Ram Kishan Rai v. Cheddi Rai 68 Ind. Cas. 235 : 20 A.L.J. 577 : 44 A. 628 : (1922) A.I.R. (A) 402 and certain older decisons of this Court, more particularly Dahp Singh v. Kundan Lal 18 Ind. Cas. 776 : 11 A.L.J. 244 : 35 A. 207. In this later case the learned Judges quoted with approval, and purported to follow an older decision of a Bench of this Court of which I was myself a member in the case of Indar...
Jagmohan Prasad and anr. Vs. Brijendra Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All523; (1924)ILR46All627
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs claim to pre-empt properties in a number of villages appended to the parent village Janar, shares in which have been transferred by defendants 2 and 3 to defendant No. 1. The sale-deed in question purports to bear the date, the 16th of August', 1919, but it was not presented for registration till the 11th of October, 1919. The plaintiffs, who are first cousins, base their claim on the custom and the conditions as entered in the wajib-ul-arz of the year 1247 Fasli. The district is a permanently settled district, and it is not disputed that that settlement has not yet expired, though in the meantime records have been revised. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that they had made two demands of pre-emption and in spite of those demands the defendants had not transferred the property to them. The defendant vendee denied the existence of a custom and denied that the plaintif...
Jagmohan Prasad and anr. Vs. Brijendra Bahadur Singh Alias Jhullar Sin ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.10
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The plaintiffs claim to preempt properties in a number of villages appended to the parent village Janar, shares in which have been transferred by defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to defendant No. 1 The sale-deed in question purports to bear the date, the 16th August 1919, but it was not presented for registration till the 11th October 1919. The plaintiffs who are first cousins base their claim on the custom and the conditions as entered in the wajib-ul-arz of the year 1247 F. The district is a permanently settled district and it is not disputed that that Settlement has not yet expired, though in the meantime records have been revised. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that they had made two demands of pre-emption and inspite of those demands the defendants had not transferred the property to them. The defendant vendee denied the existence of a custom and denied that the plaintiffs had any right of pre-emption.2. The learne...
Seth Behari Lal Vs. AmIn Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All918; 79Ind.Cas.1029
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of the site of a house. The claim was disputed on the ground of adverse possession. It has been found that the plaintiff is the owner of the site. It has also been found that the defendant's predecessor-in-interest occupied the land in 1885 under an agreement which allowed him to build a house on it but required him to vacate it and remove the materials when asked to do so by the owner. It is further found that from that time ground-rent has been regularly paid and that the appellant, when he bought the house knew of the plaintiff's rights, that is, he knew that the site belonged to the plaintiff and that his vendor had no transferable interest in it.2. Two pleas are taken in the grounds of appeal:1. That no decree for ejectment should have been given but only a decree for arrears of rent.2. That the lease or counterpart executed by the defendant's predecessor required registration.3. The first plea has not been seriously pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »