Allahabad Court June 1924 Judgments
Jambu Dass Vs. Jai Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All47
Neave, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a share in a house. The plaintiff Jambu Dass and the first two defendants Jai Prakash and Jai Chandan are brothers. A dispute over the ancestral property was referred to arbitration in 1906 the share now in suit was awarded to the plaintiff by the arbitrator. This award was confirmed by a decree of a Civil Court on the 18th June 1908. In 1916 the share in suit was sold in execution of a decree to one Konwal Nain who has been impleaded in the present suit as defendant No. 3. He has not appeared throughout the proceedings and has not contested the plaintiff's claim.2. The present suit was instituted on the 14th of June 1920. The plaintiff's case was that five or six years previously he had permitted his two brothers to live in his part of the house. The purchase at auction by Konwal Nain was merely benami on his own account. His brothers now refused to surrender possession to him and he according...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Singh Vs. Banwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All59; 82Ind.Cas.350
Neave, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit to eject the respondents Mirchi and Banwari from a house which the plaintiff acquired under a sale-deed of the 27th June, 1921. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that the house had originally been purchased in execution of a decree by one Hira Lal who had leased it to Mirchi under a Kirayanama. The plaintiff bought the house from Hira Lal's heir. He alleged that Mirchi had sub-let the house to Banwari whom he also impleaded.2. Banwari denied that any relationship of landlord and tenant existed between him and the plaintiff and set up his own title on the ground of adverse possession.3. The first Court found that Mirchi had never obtained possession of the house and was therefore not a tenant and. could not be called upon to pay rent, that Banwari was in occupation as a trespasser but has not acquired an adverse title. The suit was accordingly decreed for possession.4. The lower Appellate Court has accepted the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Singh Vs. Janki Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All93
Daniels, J.1. Though the value of this appeal is only Rs. 3, it involves a question of principle of some importance. The suit was one for ejectment in the Revenue Court under Section 58 read with Section 34 of the Agra Tenancy Act. Section 34 was not specifically pleaded, but the suit was clearly brought in reliance on that section as no specific contract of tenancy between the parties was either alleged in the plaint or proved.2. The real question in dispute is whether She land is or is not the plaintiff's sir. If it is his sir, he is entitled to treat the defendant as his tenant and to eject him under Section 34, the defendant having occupied the land without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff's father Lohari Singh was one of four brothers who were proprietors and joint sir holders of a sir khata. The three brothers other than Lohari Singh sold their rights to the defendant. The three brothers thereby obtained ox-proprietary rights in a proportionate portion of the holding under ...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Umrao Singh Vs. Lal Singh and Chittu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All917
Boys, J.1. Lal Umrao Singh, judgment-debtor (the applicant in revision here) held a simple mortgage bond which was attached and sold by Lai Singh, the first opposite party here, in execution of a decree. On the 23rd of October, 1922, the judgment-debtor sent the money by telegraphic money-order, but it arrived after the sale. The 24th being a, Sunday, he deposited, the money on the 25th, and on the 28th filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 89, to get the sale set aside. The decree-holder objected that the simple mortgage, bond- not being 'immovable property,' the sale could not be set aside-The Munsif disallowed this objection holding that a mortgagee's rights, whether the mortgage was simple or usufructuary, constituted' 'an interest in immovable property,' that, the fact that the property attached was attached as movable, did not render it movable once for all and that it. was immovable within the meaning of the term in the Transfer of Property Act.2. The District Judge, on app...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Jambu Dass Vs. Jai Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.344
Neave, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a share in a house. The plaintiff Jambu Dass and the first two defendants Jai Prakash and Jai Chandan are brothers. A dispute over the ancestral property was referred to arbitration and in 1906 the share now in suit was awarded to the plaintiff by the arbitrator. This award was confirmed by a decree of a Civil Court on the 18th of June 1908. In 1910 the share in suit was sold in execution of a decree to one Kanwal Nain who has been impleaded in the present suit as defendant No. 3 He has not appeared throughout the proceedings and has not contested the plaintiff's claim.2. The present suit was instituted on the 14th of June, 1920. The plaintiff's case was that five or six years previously he had permitted his two brothers to live in his part of the house. The purchase at auction by Kanwal Nain was merely benami on his own account. His brothers now refused to surrender possession to him and he acc...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Umrao Singh Vs. Lal Singh and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.890
Boys, J.1. Lal Umrao Singh judgment debtor (the applicant in revision here) hold a simple mortgage-bond which was attached and sold by Lal Singh, the first opposite party here, in execution of a decree. On the 23rd of October 1922, the judgment-debtor sent the money by telegraphic money-order but it arrived after the sale. The 24th being a Sunday he deposited the money on the 25th and on the 28th filed an application under Rule 89 to get the sale set aside, The decree-holder objected that the simple mortgage-bond not being 'immoveable property' the sale could not be set aside. The Munsif disallowed this objection holding that a mortgagee's rights, whether the mortgage was simple or usufructuary, constituted 'an interest in immoveable property,' that the fact that the property attached was attached as moveable did not render it moveable once for all and that it was immoveable within the meaning of the term in the Transfer of Property Act.2. The District Judge on appeal relying on Natara...
Tag this Judgment!Sikandar Singh and anr. Vs. Bachchu Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All54
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs (Hindu aims) sued for the setting aside of an alienation by their grandfather, one Ajudhia Singh. Both the Subordinate Courts held that the suit was time-barred. This second appeal is filed in consequence.2. The youngest son of Ajudhia Singh was Ram Iqbal and the eldest son of Kam Iqbal is the plaintiff Sikandar Singh. The learned Subordinate Judge of the trial Court held that when Sikandar Singh was born and also before he was conceived Ram Iqbal had lost his right to question the alienation, being at the time 24 years of age. It was argued on the basis of a slip in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that Sikandar Singh was conceived before Ram Iqbal's right to sue had become time-barred. In one portion of the judgment he observed.Mahabir Singh the next witness said that Ajudhia had died at the age of 60 or 65. This seems correct. He further says that Ram Iqbal was 9 or 10 years old when Ajudhia died, so according to this calculation Ram Iqbal wou...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Karimullah Vs. Gudar Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All56; 82Ind.Cas.306
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Sheikh Karimullah is purchaser of the alleged rights and interests of defendant No. 4 Mital. His allegation was that Mital and others had mortgaged the property to defendant No. 1 Gudar and he desired to redeem that mortgage of 9th May, 1917. Another important party defendant in the suit was defendant No. 6 Mt. Deokali.2. In para. 10 of the plaint it is stated that defendant No. 6 Mt. Deokali was made a party though she had no concern in the property because of the allegation of the mortgagee, Gudar, that he had made over possession to her. Defendant No. 7 is a transferee from Mi. Deokali. It appears that contest lies between Mital and Mt. Deokali as to the ownership of the property. In the plaint however no relief is claimed specifically against Mt. Deokali as apart from the mortgage. In para. 12 possession is desired on redemption of mortgage.3. A copy of the registered mortgage deed was produced and the mortgagee Gudar did not produce the original. Gudar de...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Vs. Rajjan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All123; 82Ind.Cas.332
Neave, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 45 a year for the three years, 1327, 1328 and 1329 Fasli. The defence was that the rate of rent was Rs. 18 only and this had been duly paid. The first Court has found that this defence was false, that the rent recorded until 1325 was Rs. 21-8 that from 1325 onwards Rs. 45 has been entered as the rent and that in the khatauni of 1329 Fasli there appear against the entry of Sections 45 the signatures of the landlord, of one of the tenants and of the Qanungo. This entry it has accepted as an agreement to pay rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 45 under Section 41 of the Tenancy Act and the signature of the Qanungo it has accepted as a sufficient attestation to dispense with the necessity for registration under Section 97 of that Act, The lower Appellate Court has dissented from this view and has decreed the suit at the rate of Rs. 21-8 holding that no valid enhancement of rent had taken plac...
Tag this Judgment!Sikandar Singh and ors. Vs. Bachchu Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.307
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs (Hindu sons) sued for the setting aside of an alienation by their grand-father, one Ajudhia Singh. Both the Subordinate Courts held that the suit was time-barred. This second appeal is filed in consequence.2. The youngest son of Ajudhia Singh was Rani Iqbal and the eldest son of Ram Iqbal is the plaintiff Sikandar Singh. The learned Subordinate Judge of the Trial Court held that when Sikandar Singh was born and also before he was conceived Ram Iqbal had lost his right to question the alienation, being at the time 24 years of age. It was argued on the basis of a slip in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that Sikandar Singh was conceived before Ram Iqbal's right to sue had become time-barred. In one portion of the judgment he observed.Mahabir Singh the next witness said that Ajudhia had died at the age of 60 or 65. This seems correct. He further says that Ram Iqbal was 9 or 10 years old when Ajudhia died, so according to this calculation Ram Iqbal w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »