Allahabad Court July 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.
Bindraban Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All330; 85Ind.Cas.449
1. There were two brothers, Jawahir and Mazbut. It has been found that they were joint. Jawahir died shortly before Mazbut, and left w widow, Bari Bahu surviving him. The two brothers together owned an 8 pies share. On the death of Jawahir, with the consent of Mazbut, the name of Bari Bahu was recorded with respect to a 4 pies share. On the death of Mazbut the name of Bari Bahu was recorded in respect of the 4 pies share which stood in his name. Bari Bahu continued to be in possession of the entire 8 pies share till her death which happened in 1917. Before her death, however she; on the 6th November 1906, made a transfer by way of sale of a 4 pies share in favour of the defendant-appellant. On 13th September 1918, that is to say within 12 years of the execution of the sale deed the respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen claiming, as the reversioners of Bari Bahu, for the recovery of the 4 pies share sold to the defendant-appellant. One of the pleas of the appe...
B.N.W. Railway Vs. Firm Manorath Bhagat Dhian Ram and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.794
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from the decree of a learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes. 93 bags were despatched in one wagon from Turtipur to Agra in a goods train. When the train arrived at Magarwara Station it was reported to the Station Master that a door of the wagon was open. He re sealed the door. When the train arrived at Cawnpore, the contents of the wagon were checked and it was discovered that five bags were missing. Then the goods were despatched they were placed in the wagon which had been fastened with a piece of twine and seals were put on the doors, but admittedly the doors were not locked. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court had before him evidence that thefts were constant so much so that about 10 wagons with broken seals were discovered every month, and that in spite of this circumstance no precautions were taken to lock the wagons or to keep any extra watch on the trains or the stations. The learned Judge was not bound to bring on record the w...
Jageshwar Prasad and ors. Vs. Suraj Bali Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All16; 83Ind.Cas.249
1. The question before us is whether the learned Judge of this Court was right in holding that the evidence before the lower appellate Court would not justify the inference which he drew from them. The matter is not really a question of fact but a question of law.2. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain possession over a certain plot of land on the allegation that it formed their threshing floor and the defendants, who are co-sharers in the village, had unlawfully taken possession of the same and had built upon it. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiffs were tenants in the village, that they had been in occupancy of the plot in suit for more than twenty years and used it as their threshing-floor. He found that there was no clear evidence to prove that the periods of the tenancy of the agricultural lands and of the holding by the plaintiffs of the land in suit were co-extensive...
Mt. Bahal Kuar Vs. NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All184; 84Ind.Cas.822
Daniels, J.1. The relief asked for in this case was a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of certain property and an injunction restraining the defendant, who claims the property, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. This is clearly a claim for declaration with consequential relief. The right to obtain an injunction against the defendant flows from the declaration which the plaintiff seeks of his right to the property. If the plaintiff has that right ha is entitled to an injunction in consequence. If he has not that right ha is not entitled to an injunction. The Taxing Officer in fact felt no doubt on this point the only reason that ha has made this reference is that ha was doubtful of his power under Section 12(ii) of the Court Peas Act to decide that the plaint had been understampad in the Court below to the detriment of the revenue. Having regard to Section 5 of the Act I have no doubt that this power is vested in him. By that section the power of the Court to ...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Sheikh Chuttan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All328
Sulaiman, J.1. This is curious case in which much confusion has been caused owing to the circumstances that an execution case as well as a regular suit relating to the same crops were before the same officer.2. Originally Jwala Prasad brought a suit against Sewa Singh and others impleading one Chuttan also. He obtained a decree against the other persons, but Chuttan was exempted. He put in an application for attachment of certain crops and the attachment was made and the crops thus came under the custody of the Court. Chuttan instead of taking objections in the execution department filed a regular suit in the same Court for a declaration that the crops did not belong to the judgment-debtor. While that suit was pending, an application was made by Chuttan praying that the crops being perishable property should be handed over to some other person for realisation of their price. It is not quite clear whether this application was made in the execution department or in the regular suit; thou...
Salamat Ali Vs. Guj Kumar Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All574
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 281-A khasra situated in mahal hhaa patti Wahid Ali of the village Rajapur. The plaintiff is a co-sparer in patti Ghairkhwahindgan' of mahal khas of the said village. His allegation was that the defendant Gaj Kumar Chand had purchased a part of the share of Mubarak Ali but had no right to the plot in dispute.2. It appears that a previous suit had been filed by Gaj Kumar Chand against Pitai for arrears of rent in respect, of the plot in question to which Salamat Ali was also impleaded as a co-defendant. That suit was resisted both by Pitai and Salamat Ali, Pitai pleaded that he had held the land at one time as a non-occupancy tenant on behalf of Salamat Ali and that he had surrendered the holding afterwards and was not therefore liable for rent to any party. Salamat Ali set up his own title to the land. That suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance but decreed by the Collector on appeal against Pifcai alone. His ...
Lal Baijnath Singh Vs. Chandrapal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All795; 83Ind.Cas.204
1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the respondents had a right to transfer their grove. The suit was for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were holding the land with the permission of the plaintiff, the landholder, and they had no right to transfer the same on which a grove was standing to the respondent No. 1 without his consent.2. It is common ground that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 obtained the land from the landholder, on payment of as lump sum as a premium without any agreement to, pay any rent, for the express purpose of planting trees. There is no evidence that any custom obtained in the village such as may govern a case like this. We have to decide the question on the provisions of the general law having special regard to the provisions of. the Tenancy Act.3. The position of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be that of a tenant within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. They do not pay any rent. Much les...
Syed Salamat Ali Vs. Babu Gaj Kumar Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.302
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No. 281-A khasra situated in mahal khas patti Wahid Ali of the village Rajapur. The plaintiff is a co-sharer in patti 'ghairkhwahindgan' of mahal khas of the said village. His allegation was that the defendant Gaj Kumar Chand had purchased a part of the share of Mubarak Ali but had no light to the plot in dispute.2. It appears that a previous suit had been filed by Gaj Kumar Chand against Pitai for arrears of rent in respect of the plot in question to which Salamat Ali was also impleaded as a co-defendant. That suit was resisted both by Pitai and Salamat Ali. Pitai pleaded that he had held the land at one time as a non-occupancy tenant on behalf of Salamat Ali and that he had surrendered the holding afterwards and was not, therefore, liable for rent to any party. Salamat Ali set up his own title to the land. That suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance but decreed by the Collector on appeal against Pitai alone. His...
Wala Prasad Vs. Sheikh Chuttan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.161
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a curious case in which much confusion has been caused owing to the circumstance that an execution case as well as a regular suit relating to the same crops were before the same officer.2. Originally Jwala Prasad brought a suit against Sewa Singh and others impleading one Chuttan also. He obtained a decree against the other persons, but Chuttan was exempted. He put in an application for attachment of certain crops and the attachment was made and the crops thus came under the custody of the Court. Chuttan instead of taking objections in the execution department filed a regular suit in the same Court for a declaration that the crops did not belong to the judgment-debtor. While that suit was pending, an application was made by Chuttan praying that the crops being perishable property should be handed over (sic) some other person for realisation of their price. It is not quite clear whether this application was made in the execution apartment or in the regular suit: t...
Hoji Sheikh Bodha Vs. Babu Sukhram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All1; 83Ind.Cas.5
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. This is a question of law which arose in a Letters Patent Appeal which came before my brother Sulaiman and myself. Owing to certain decisions, to which it will be necessary to refer in a moment, the result of the discussion by way of appeal from the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court was that the following question was referred to this Bench.Whether the presumption permitted by Section 90 of the Evidence Act in the case of a document purporting to be 30 years old, that it was duly executed by the party by whom it purports to be executed includes the presumption that when the signature of the executant purports to have been made by the pen of the scribe the latter was duly authorized to sign for him.2. It should be observed that that question is carefully confined to the ambit or extent of the presumption of due execution which is permitted by Section 90. It does not purport to open the door to a discussion whether in the particular case the document purported...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »