Allahabad Court June 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.
Ghasi and ors. Vs. Mt. Bharto and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All53
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs' occupancy tenants to the extent of 1/3rd in the occupancy holding sued for possession of specific plots on the ground that the holding had been divided between them and the defendants and they had been in possession of these specific plots from which they had been unlawfully ejected. The learned Munsiff was of opinion that such a suit for specific possession was barred under the provision of Section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act and granted to the plaintiffs joint possession with the defendants to the extent of 1/3rd of the entire holding.2. On appeal by the plaintiffs the learned District Judge was of opinion that a suit for possession in pursuance of existing facts and previous separate possession of co-tenants was not a suit or other proceeding for the division of a holding or distribution of rent thereof and was not barred by any provision of the Tenancy Act. The matter is concluded by a decision in Letters Patent of a Bench of this Court in Raghunath Kalwar ...
Raghuraj Singh Vs. Sham Dei and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All51
Boys, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for return of ornaments and for certain money expended. The ornaments are said to have been given and the money is said to have been expanded in consequence of a marriage which had been arranged and the suit for recovery was due to the fact of that marriage having fallen through. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court dismissed the suit on the merits, having heard it fully.2. This application in Civil revision is now made by the plaintiff urging that the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes was ousted by Clause 35, Sub-clause (g) of Schedule 2 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. That clause bars the trial of suits for compensation for breach of contract of betrothal or promise of marriage.3. In view of the fact that part of the claim was for money which it was alleged had been expended in preliminary marriage ceremonies I think that the clause in question would, if appealed to, by either party or if it had come to the notice of...
Nihora Khan and ors. Vs. Mathura Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All78
Neave, J.1. The only point taken in this appeal is that the rate of interest allowed by the Courts below is excessive. The mortgage deed provided for the payment of simple interest at 1 per cent, per mensem with a clause that in case of default the interest already accumulated should be added to the principal and thereafter compound interest paid on the whole at Rs. 1-8 per cent, per mensem.2. It is contended in appeal that this clause is a stipulation by way of penalty under Section 74 of the Contract Act and this is not denied by the opposite party. It is, however, claimed by the latter that the penalty is not excessive. The principal money secured by the bond was Rs. 250, the amount now claimed is Rs. 638. Both the Courts below have held that the interest claimed is not excessive.3. The appellant's learned pleader refers to Sundar Koer v. Rai Sham Krishen (1907) 34 Cal. 150, but in view of the explanation now added to Section 74, it is quite clear that any such stipulation as that c...
Mt. Aishah and anr. Vs. Abdul Ghani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All95
Daniels, J.1. This is a suit under Section 159 of the Tenancy Act to recover revenue paid to the Government by the plaintiff as lambardar on behalf of the defendant who is a co-sharer under his lambardari.2. The facts of the case are unusual. The lambardar is the person primarily responsible under Section 144 of the Land Revenue Act for paying the revenue into the tahsil. It is the duty of the co-sharers to pay their quota through the lambardar. If the revenue is not paid, it is the lambardar who in the first instance will be subject to coercive process. In this case the revenue in dispute relates to the years 1325 and 1326 fasli. The revenue of 1325 was paid by the lambardar into the tahsil in two instalments on the 5th February, 1918 and 7th June, 1918 respectively.3. A week later, on the 11th February, 1918, the defendant paid into the treasury direct her share of the first instalment which had already been paid by the lambardar. The second instalment was Similarly paid by her on 2n...
Bishunath Rai Vs. Jodhi Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All120
Dalal, J.1. A Hindu son sued for the cancellation of two auction sales of joint family ancestral property sold in execution of decrees which the lower Appellate Court held were not binding on him. The question was whether the decree were such as would bind a Hindu son. One sale was held on the 28fch June, 1911, in execution of a decree for sale on foot of a mortgage and the other sale took place on 28th September, 1912, in execution of a simple money-decree. The simple money-decree was for a debt contracted by the father to pay pre-emption money. Both the lower Courts have held that this was a legal necessity for which the father, the managing member of the family, may borrow money. The property is still in the possession of the family. Apart from that it will be the pious duty of the son to pay a simple money debt due from his father even during the lifetime of his father.2. The second sale raises a question of burden of proof. It was argued here that it lay on the auction-purchaser t...
Debi Charan Vs. Raghubir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All674
Neave, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of two plots. These belonged originally to Mahadev and Ram Gharib as sir. They mortgaged them in 1303 Fasli to the defendant's father. In 1326 Fasli partition took place and the plots in suit were transferred to the plaintiffs. In the partition proceedings one Shiv Murat was recorded as the tenant-in-chief.2. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that he had Shiv Murat ejected by a Revenue Court and that the defendant has since taken possession of the plots. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. In appeal it is contended that when the plots, which admittedly before partition were the sir of the mortgagor, were transferred to the share of another co-sharer the mortgagor at once became their ex-proprietary tenant and that he and his mortgagee were entitled to remain in cultivating possession, and that this, was what actually happened.3. Section 126 of the Land Revenue Act provides that when land held...
(Syed) Siddiq Ali Vs. Chanda
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All49
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff lambardar sued a tenant for recovery of rent and his defence was that he had paid it in good faith to one of the co-sharers Mt. Fatima. The Trial Court of the Assistant Collector accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the rent was not paid and even if paid the defendant did not do so in good faith. The learned Judge disagreed with the first Court and found that the defendant was a tenant of the proprietary body in general of the khata khewat in which the land in suit was included. He also disagreed with another finding of the first Court that the defendant was a tenant of Aft. Fatima alone. He then went on to discuss whether the plaintiff as lambardar was entitled to collect the entire rent from the defendant.2. In the written statement the defendant had specifically pleaded that the lambardar had no right to realise rent in the mahal in suit. The learned Judge found as a fact by reference to entries in the ...
Mahomed Abbas Ali Khan Vs. Sahu Gokul Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All52
Neave, J.1. The defendant-appellant, Muhammad Abbas Ali Khan purchased certain land at an auction sale in execution of a mortgage decree. On the 19th of June, 1917, he leased this property td the other four defendants for one year at a rental of Rs. 200. Out of this Rs. 100 was paid to him on the same day and apparently Rs. 32-8 a few days later.2. On the 3rd of July, 1917, the same land was sold in execution of a prior mortgage decree and purchased by the plaintiff-respondent. Rs. 67-8 was paid by defendants 1 to 4 to him as the balance of the rent due for the year 1325 Fasli. On the 30th of April, 1921, he brought the present suit against all the defendants to recover the Rs. 132-8 paid to the present appellant with interest. The plaint, as framed, does not disclose at all clearly the nature of the suit. The first Court held that the claim was barred by limitation and it dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, has found that the cause of action did not arise till the ...
Badri Prasad Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All144
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Lala Badri Prasad delivered according to his statement five packages to the Railway Company at Dholpur for being booked to Agra to be carried in the brakevan. This was done on 19th April, 1920. On 22nd October, 1920, he drew the attention of the Railway authorities that these five packages had not been delivered to him. This notice was given to the Railway Company three days more than six months from the data of delivery of the luggage. On 19th November, 1920, only four packages were made over by the Company to the plaintiff and out of one of these it is alleged that certain articles of 6ho plaintiff were stolen during transit. On 28th February, 1921, he gave a notice to the Company of his claim for the value of the one package not delivered to him and of the articles missing from a package which was delivered to him in a damaged condition.2. He instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 516 with the following details: Rs. 431 price of goods contained in the mi...
iqbal Ahmad and anr. Vs. Suraj Bali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All210
Daniels, J.1. This is a second appeal in a suit for ejectment of a non-occupancy tenant under Section 58 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The appeal has apparently been preferred to the civil Court because a question of proprietary right is involved. The real question in dispute is whether the land in suit is situated in Dewara Jadid in the Azamgarh District of which the plaintiffs-appellants are zamindars or in the village of Dewara Sabitpur in the Fyzabad District of which the defendant Babu Narendra Bahadur Singh is in charge. The other defendants are the persons actually cultivating the land and claiming to cultivate under Babu Narendra Bahadur. The dispute between the principal parties, the plaintiffs and Babu Narendra Bahadur Singh, was the subject of proceedings in the criminal Court under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. In these proceedings Babu Narendra Bahadur Singh was found to be in possession and an order was passed in his favour under Section 145(6). The plaintiffs thereupo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »