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.
Bishen Sahai Vs. Chhotey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All119; 85Ind.Cas.270
Daniels, J.1. The question for decision ID this reference is whether in the case of a cross-objection claiming possession of an immovable property the Court-fee is payable ad valorem, on the value of the property or should not be calculated on five times the land revenue in accordance with Section 7(v). As is well known the word 'cross-objection' was introduced in the Court Fees Act for the first time by Act V of 1908. It appears in Article I of First Schedule which relates to ad valorem fees. It was decided in 1917 by Tudball, J., in Lakham Singh v. Ram Kishan Das (1918) 40 All. 93 that an ad valorem fee is payable on cross-objection even when the relief claimed by it is of a declaratory nature which could come under Article 17 of Schedule II. The reason is that Article 1, Schedule I makes all plaints, appeals and cross-objections chargeable with an ad valorem fee unless otherwise provided for in the Act. Plaints and memorandums of appeal of a declaratory nature are otherwise provided...
Mohan Lal and ors. Vs. Bhuteshwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All142; 83Ind.Cas.1
Walsh, A.C.J.1. There are so many points upon which it seems possible to defeat the plaintiff's attempt to dodge the previous judgment, that it is somewhat difficult to select, and personally I have abandoned the task. I am inclined to think that if I were driven to it, I should hold that, inasmuch as the plaintiff as a matter of grace - to use his Counsel's expression - succeeded in extracting from the Munsif a decree giving him possession of the property in a suit in which he had merely made a claim for rent, he is estopped in this Court, or any other, from saying that the Munsif was not competent to decide the question of title in that suit, if he should come to the conclusion that there was no tenancy. If he is estopped from disputing that point, then ha is in this suit raising an issue which the Court is undoubtedly competent to try, which has been in issue in a suit which the previous Court was also competent to try. But I should prefer not to express a final decision upon that p...
Manga Vs. Changa Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All131
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a claim for compensation caused by the wrongful seizure and detention of certain movable property attached before judgment during the pendency of a suit instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff, for the recovery of money due on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the latter. The attachment was made on the 14th July, 1919. Among the property attached were some carts and a pair of bullocks, one of which died during the pendency of the attachment.2. The present plaintiff denied having executed the promissory note. The suit. was decreed by the Court which made the attachment but dismissed on appeal. The plaintiff whose property was attached claims compensation for the loss of profits, and the loss of one bullock, and also for the mental distress, and loss of reputation The suit was filed on the 14th July, 1921. The Courts below, applying Article 29 of the Indian Limitation Act, held that it was barred by limitation. That ...
Mehi Lal Vs. Ramji Dass and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All792; 80Ind.Cas.939
1. This appeal raises, a nice point and a very interesting point, namely as to the meaning of the words 'seen it' used with reference to a document in Section 63 of the Evidence Act. The facts of the case are so far as they are material that an attesting witness to a certain mortgage transaction for Rs. 80, alleged to have taken place in 1865, which is either lost or not forthcoming, so as to entitle the party to give secondary evidence of it, was produced in the Trial Court. His name was Anandi Lal. He was ignorant of Persian character, and, therefore, unable to read the document itself, but he purported to give evidence, or at any rate the first Court of appeal understood him to give evidence, that the contents of the document were either translated, or read out to him, or explained to him, in such a way that he was able to remember them, and he gave on oath his recollection of the material contents of the document, and has been believed by the first Court of appeal. If that finding ...
Sukhdeo and ors. Vs. Ram Newaz and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All65
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to two bighas of nankar land situated in the village Balakmau, which appertained to a 9 pies and odd share belonging to Earn Charan. On the 12th February, 1884, Ram Charan sold his zamindari share aforesaid to Sheo Narayan, his son-in-law, reserving at the same time the said two bighas of nankar land for his use and for the use of his male descendants (aulad khas) without any power of alienation and free from any liability for the payment of rent subject to the condition that if at any time he had no descendant loft the land shall revert to the purchaser.2. Ram Charan accordingly remained in possession of the said land during his lifetime. He was succeeded by his son Muazzam Ram, who died in the year 1918 without leaving any issue. The plaintiffs claim to be the nephews of Ram Charan and their contention is that the said two bighas of land had been permanently exempted from the sale and that the covenant restraining alienation and p...
Mathura Das Vs. Samraj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All240
1. This suit was filed for a declaration that a sale-deed executed by the plaintiff's judgment-debtor in favour of the respondent Ramraj Singh on 23rd April, 1919, is null and void as against the plaintiff and that the property is liable to sale in execution of the plaintiff's decree against the other defendants. The suit has not been tried on the merits, both-Courts having dismissed it as barred by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The ground taken by the trial Court and approved by the Court below is that, according to the allegations in the plaint Ramraj Singh's purchase was made after the issue of an injunction and of an attachment in execution of the plaintiff's decree. Under these circumstances the Courts have held that Ramraj Singh is a representative of the judgments-debtor under the ruling in Lalji Mal v. Nand Kishore (1897) 19 All. 332 and therefore the plaintiff's remedy was under Section 47. It appears to us that the Courts have not paid sufficient attention to what a...
Dhanukdhari Mani and ors. Vs. Mt. Piari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All481
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by Raghubansman Tiwari, the father of the present plaintiffs-appellants, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of an 8-pies share in mauza Balahi and of certain plots of ex-proprietary land in the village Dhatura Khas on the allegation that he lived jointly with Paramhansman Tiwari, the husband of Mt. Piari, that Paramhansman had died in the lifetime of his father, and that Mt. Piari was only entitled to maintenance. It was further alleged that the name of Mt. Piari had been entered in the revenue papers for her consolation, that 4 bighas 12 dhurs of ex-proprietary land in the village Dhatura Khas was set apart for her maintenance and that she had wrongfully transferred a portion of the property, standing in her name, to the defendants Sheomohanmani Tiwari and Sheomohanmani Tiwari, without any legal necessity. The defence was that Paramhansman Tiwari, the husband1 of Mt. Piari lived separately from the plaintif...
Sukhdeo and ors. Vs. Ram Newas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.326
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to two bighas of nankar land situated in the village Balakmau, which appertained to a 9 pies share belonging to Ram Charan. On the 12th February 1884, Ram Charan sold his zemindari share aforesaid to Sheo Narain, his son-in-law, reserving at the same time the said two, bighas of nankar land for his use and for the use of his male descendants (aulad khas) without any power of alienation and free from any liability for the payment of rent subject to the condition that if at any time he had no descendant left the land shall revert to the purchaser.2. Ram Charan accordingly remained in possession of the said land during his lifetime. He was succeeded by his son Muazzam Ram, who died in the year 1918 without leaving any issue. The plaintiffs claim to be the nephews of Ram Charan and their contention is that the said two bighas of land had been permanently exempted from the sale and that the covenant restraining alienation and providing f...
Ram Sia and anr. Vs. Bua
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All790; 84Ind.Cas.360
1. This appeal raises a question of Hindu Law, namely, whether claimants Ram Sia and Sheo Prasad are heirs as bandhus to the deceased Basi. The pedigree is given in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, hearing an appeal, who dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs, on their own showing, were no heirs to the last male holder of the property. The pedigree, it must be understood, was not found by the learned Subordinate Judge as correct, for he did not apply his mind to this question of fact. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge was confirmed by a learned Judge of this Court and hence this Letters Patent Appeal. The pedigree for the sake of easier reference is given below: MANDHAT _____________________________|_______________________ | | | Kalu Bhori Sitaram | | (dead.) Ganga | Basi = (Musammat | Mahrani) | propositus, | _________________|__________________ | | Musnmmat Anandi Musammat Sankariaj | | Ram Sia, Sheo Prasad, plaintiff. plaintiff.2. The learned Subordi...
NaraIn Vs. Ram Saran Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All871; 85Ind.Cas.490
1. The plaintiff, Ram Saran Das, and the second defendant, Shadi Ram, were two undivided brothers. Shadi Ram, in 1913, executed a mortgage of his undivided share in favour of the father of the appellant. Subsequently a partition took place between the two brothers and the particular property to which the mortgage related was assigned wholly to the plaintiff. After the partition the appellant's father brought a suit for sale on his mortgage but did not implead the plaintiff. He obtained a decree against Shadi Ram, and the appellant, his father having died, bought the property in execution proceedings. The plaintiff subsequently brought the present suit to recover the property, and under the rule laid down in Bhup Singh v. Chhedda Singh 58 Ind. Cas. 171 : 42 A. 596 : 18 A.L.J. 807 : 2 U.P.L.R.(A) 345, his right to do, so cannot be disputed. Narain has put forward three grounds of appeal. The first is that Shadi Ram should be treated as having executed the mortgage in the capacity of mana...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »