Allahabad Court May 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.
Beni Madho Tewari and ors. Vs. Ram Sunder Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All859; 80Ind.Cas.902
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The claim related to shares in four villages. With the fourth village we are not now concerned in appeal. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim in respect of the whole share sold in Hasanpur and half of the shares sold in Pauni and Walipur. They have, however, found that the consideration of Rs. 7,000 mentioned in the sale-deed, was not the true consideration and have fixed it at Rs. 3,000.2. As regards the village Walipur, we are of opinion that the claim cannot be decreed. The plaintiffs, in order to prove that a custom of pre-emption exists in the village, relied upon a wajib-ul-arz of the year 1881 which contains a pre-emption clause similar to the clause in the wajib-ul-arz which was before the Full Bench, in the case of Randhir Singh v. Rajpal Missir 81 Ind. Cas. 25 : 22 A.L.J.R. 561 : 46 A. 478 : (1924) A.I.R (A.) 321, (F.A.F.O. No. 85 of 1923 decided on the 18th of December, 1923). It was held therein...
Ram Ganesh Rai Vs. B. Rup NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All34
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. The defendant appeals on the following grounds:1. That the Court below should have come to a finding on the title of the plaintiffs.2. That the suit is premature and that the mortgage was not redeemable until the Full Moon of Jeth in Sambat year 2039 corresponding to 1982 A.D.3. That the suit is barred by Section 238(k) of the Land Revenue Act.4. That the suit is barred by adverse possession.5. Because the mortgage money should include revenue with interest thereon paid by the appellant.2. No argument was addressed to us on the last point and we have therefore to consider the first; four grounds only.3. Plea 1. - The learned Judge refused to go into the question of plaintiffs' title be-cause he said it had not been seriously contested in the trial Court or raised in the grounds of appeal to him. The plain-tiffs set out their title in para. 3 of their plaint. The d...
(Mirza) Imdad HussaIn Vs. Mirza Haidar Beg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All135
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff alleged that there was a custom of pre-emption in the village under which ha was entitled to pre-empt the sale by the vendee in favour of the defendant vendee who was said to be a stranger. The vendee defendant No. 1 denied the existence of the custom and also pleaded that be himself was a co-sharer in the mahal and therefore on the same footing as the plaintiff pre-emptor.2. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that no custom had been established at all and that the entry in the wajib-ul-arz relied upon by the plaintiff was a record of contract and not of custom It however held that the defendant No. 1 was not a co-sharer in the same mahal, and that even if there had been a custom he would not have been on the same footing as the pre-emptor.3. The lower Appellate Court has upheld the decree of the Court of first instance but differed from it on both its findings. It has found...
Fateh Chand Vs. Murari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All906; (1924)ILR46All840
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, the rent being payable by the lessee or thehadar under a written lease bearing date the 28th of June, 1918.2. It appears that the Local Government, by notification in the Local Official Gazette, remitted land revenue for a portion of the year (kharif) 1326 Fasli. The defendant lessee claimed in the suit that he should receive an abatement in the rent under Section 51 of the Tenancy Act of 1901. The lower court held that he should, and decreed the claim after allowing reduction on account of the contention of the1 defendant.3. In appeal it has been contended by the plaintiff that there is a clear stipulation in the lease that the rent would be payable irrespective of whether there is any drought or flood or any calamity by which there is no produce in the village. We I have to construe Section 51 of the Tenancy Act and to see whether the provisions of the said section override the contract or whether the cont...
Mirza Imdad HusaIn Vs. Mirza Haider Beg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.196
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff alleged that there was a custom of pre-emption in the village under which he was entitled to pre-empt the sale by the vendor in favour of the defendant vendee who was said to be a stranger. The vendee defendant No. 1 denied the existence of the custom and also pleaded that he himself was a co-sharer in the mahal and, therefore, on the same footing as the plaintiff pre-emptor.2. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that no custom had been established at all and that the entry in the wajib-ul-arz relied upon by the plaintiff was a record of contract and not of custom. It, however, held that the defendant No. 1 was not a co-sharer in the same mahal, and that even if there had been a custom he would not have been on the same footing as the pre-emptor.3. The lower Appellate Court has upheld the decree of the Court of first instance but differed from it on both its findings. It has found that th...
Babu Fateh Chand Vs. Lala Murari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.8
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, the rent being payable by the lessee or 'thekadar' under a written lease bearing date 28th June 1918.2. It appears that the Local Government, by notification in the Local Official Gazette, remitted land revenue for a portion of the year (kharif) 1326F. The defendant-lessee claimed in the suit that ho should receive an abatement in the rent under Section 51 of the Tenancy Act of 1901. The lower Court held that he should and decreed the claim after allowing reduction on account of the contention of the defendant.3. In appeal it has been contended by the plaintiff that there is a clear stipulation in the lease that the rent would be payable irrespective of whether there is any drought or flood or any calamity by which there is no produce in the village. We have to construe Section 51 of the Tenancy Act and to see whether the provisions of the said Section override the contract or whether the contract should prevail. In Section 51 th...
Nand Ram Singh Vs. Hari Saran Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All100; 82Ind.Cas.296
Daniels, J.1. These are two connected appeals in a suit for arrears of rent under Section 102 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the defendant appeals. On 16th July, 1909, the defendant executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs of an eight-annas share in the village of Mirpur Gaindiwar, mahal Daiyan Sadarang. It is in respect of this share that the present suit for arrears of rent has been brought. On the same date the mortgagees gave a theka of the share to the mortgagor on a rent of Rs. 210 per annum. No written lease was executed but the defendant executed a registered kabuliyat stating that he had taken the zamindari share, the area of which was 101 bighas on a lease from the plaintiffs and agreeing to pay the rent. Application for mutation was made to the Revenue Court and the defendant was duly entered in the khewat as thekadar and the plaintiffs as lessors in respect of the theka. It appears from the evidence of the...
Emperor Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All828
Boys, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge refusing to hear the appeal of one Hira Lal against whom an order in a summary trial has been passed under Section 562 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the refusal being based on Section 414 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which he held barred the right of appeal.2. Section 408 gives an appeal from the order of a Magistrate of the first class to the Sessions Judge. Section 410 gives an appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court. If these two sections are uncontrolled, there can be no question that an appeal lies under them from orders under Section 562 by a Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge respectively.3. The case for the Crown here is that as there was a summary trial, an appeal is barred by Section 414; the argument being that as there is no sentence at all, it must be held to be a sentence less than the maximum which is referred to in Section 414.4. To support the exclusion of a right ...
Darbari Lal Vs. Gobind Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All822
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant against the respondent for recovery of property sold to his father, Chhuttan Lal, on foot of a sale-deed dated the 1st of February, 1904, by a lady1 who has since died, namely, Musammat Mul Kunwar.2. The appellant claims as a reversioner and the pedigree given below will explain how he is related to Hoti Lal, the last male owner of the property in sulit.DAYA RAM|----------------------|-------------------------| |Jiwa Ram. Daulat Ram.| |Nikka Mal. Hoti Lal (adopted son)| Mst. Mul tCunwar (widow).|-----------------------------------------------------| | |Mittar Sain Mskkhan Lal Hoti Lal| (issueless). (adopted son).|----------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------| |Budh Sen. Nanhun Mal.| |Pindi Lal Dirbari Lal| (Plaintiff).| |-----|----------------------------------------------------| | |Har Charan Lal Kanhaiya Lal. Bal Kishan.3. It appears that Hoti Lal died, ...
Gopal Rai, Phul Chand Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All621; (1924)ILR46All837
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. These three connected appeals have been heard together. They relate to claims by different plaintiffs against the Great Indian Peninsula Bail way Company. In this judgment we refer1 in particular to the facts of the Second Appeal No. 1225 of 1922; hut the facts of the others are admittedly on all fours with them and the points for decision are the same.2. On the 26th of November, 1920, a bale of cloth was delivered to the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company at Victoria Terminus, Bombay, for despatch to railway station Yusufpur on the Bengal and North-Western Railway. The goods were never delivered. It is also admitted that they never reached the Bengal and North-Western Railway. A risk note in form B was executed in respect of this consignment by one Hari Gobind whom the learned District Judge finds to be the person who delivered the goods to the railway company. The learned Judge finds that the loss of the goods was due to theft from a, running train, that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »