Allahabad Court January 1925 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.
Makhan Lal Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All331; 87Ind.Cas.665
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of one-third share in certain properties. The Courts below have differed. The Court of first instance decreed the claim but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it so far as possession of the property is concerned but has awarded a decree for money instead.2. In 1887 a mortgage was made by one Chhatta in favour of Makhan Lal and the defendants jointly for a sum of Rs. 2,700. About the last day of limitation a suit was instituted by the mortgagees other than Makhan Lal for sale on the strength of a certified copy, the original document being in possession of Makhan Lal who had himself neither instituted a suit nor joined with the others. Makhan Lal also held certain subsequent mortgages and he was, therefore, impleaded in a dual capacity as a mortgagee and a subsequent mortgagee. It is true that Makhan Lal made some attempts after the institution of the suit to have his name transferred from the array of ...
Umar Daraz and anr. Vs. Sri Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All355; 87Ind.Cas.55
1. We are of opinion that this case has been rightly decided in the Courts below. The decision no doubt has been on technical grounds, but as the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has observed, the law of pre-emption is a highly technical law.2. The suit for pre-emption, which was filed by two plaintiffs, Umar Daraz and his minor son Rafiq Ahmad, failed on the ground that Umar Daraz, being a person who was entitled to bring a claim for preemption with regard to the sale in question, associated in his claim his minor son, who had no such interest as entitled him to claim pre-emption. In fact the Courts below have treated the son as a stranger and consequently, applying the law, which has always been followed in this Court and as it has been expounded in Bhawani Prasad v. Damru (1882) 5 All. 197, they have dismissed the suit.3. When the case came up here, Mr. Haidar, who appears on behalf of the appellants, in order to cure the defect in the suit, has asked us to remove the name...
Musammat Raj Rup Kunwar Vs. Gopi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.44
1. This is an appeal from a decision of a single Judge of this Court, who made an order that possession of a certain property could he recovered by the plaintiff, provided that the plaintiff made a payment of a thousand rupees on account of improvements made by the defendants during the subsistence of a certain lease. The position was this. The lessees had taken what was described as a permanent lease from Musammat Asmedh Kunwar. She was a Hindu widow, and the lessees may have believed that she having acquired the property from her father had a right to grant a permanent lease. The matter when enquired into in the lower Courts showed that if investigations had been made by the lessees they would have ascertained that the interest of Musammat Asmedh Kunwar was a life-interest only. On the death of Musammat Asmedh Kunwar this suit was brought for possession by the plaintiff (reversioner). The question now arises whether the lessees are entitled to' receive from the plaintiff the sum of R...
Muzaffar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All289
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a certain criminal prosecution under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Maulvi Sharafat-ullah Khan, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, to the court of some other Magistrate in the district. The prosecutor is a Sunni Muhamtnedan and the applicants are of Shia persuasion. It appears that an application was made to the District Magistrate himself for a transfer of the case, but it did not succeed. Several grounds have been taken for transfer, but I confine myself to one point which I think is a strong one in favour of the applicants. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit the applicants state; that there was a talk of compromise between the parties and the learned Magistrate sent for the Ulemas of both sides and tried to arbitrate in the matter which arbitration subsequently fell through. On this point the learned Magistrate says, in the statement supplied to the learned Government Advocate-In order to make the parties co...
Shankar Sahi and ors. Vs. Baichu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All333
1. After stating facts the judgment proceeded:In the Munsif's court the Munsif freed the ancestral property from the obligation of the mortgage, but gave a decree by which the mortgage money was to be recovered from the pre-emptive property which by that time had passed into the possession of the family as joint family property. It is that decree which in appeal to-day the appellants ask us to restore.2. The question, therefore, before us is whether in an ordinary case a Hindu father can encumber joint ancestral property to acquire the necessary funds to pre-empt other property. In our opinion he cannot do so. The first authority which was called to our notice by Mr. Sheo Prasad Sinha was the case of Palaniappa Chetty v. Deivasikamony Pandara A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 33. The passage on which reliance is placed is not an attempted definition of what is meant by 'benefit to the estate' but is a passage giving illustrations of what in the ordinary course would be likely to be accepted by a Court ...
Abdul Karim Vs. Ram Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All327
1. One Bahadur was the head of a joint undivided Hindu family consisting of himself and his three minor sons. Desiring to embark upon a certain business, Bahadur borrowed some money on his personal security. There is no question here of any alienation of the joint family estate in his hands, He found a creditor willing to advance the money on his personal security, and on those terms he had a perfect right to borrow. He failed to repay the money and the creditor bringing a suit obtained a simple money decree against him. In execution of this decree, the creditor attached a portion of the joint ancestral family property in the hands of Bahadur. Thereupon the suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the three minor sons, who came into Court through their mother as their next friend. The relief Bought was a declaration that the property attached in execution, to the extent of the shares which the plaintiffs would take on partition, amounting to three-fourths of the whole was not ...
Nathu and anr. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All335
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for s lie on the basis of a mortgage deed executed on the 4tih of July, 1911 by two brothers, Nathu and Faqira, the defendants.2. The defendants inter alia pleaded that Nathu's son, Chhajju who is a minor and a member of a joint Hindu family, had not been impleaded. The plaintiffs did not choose to implead him in this case and it is unfortunate that the Court of first instance also perhaps to avoid complications did not think it worthwhile to bring him on the record and thus dispose of all possible disputes.3. The Court of first instance, however, dismissed the claim on the ground that Chhajju, the minor member of the family,' had not been impleaded and the suit, therefore, was defective on the ground of non-joinder. In this, reliance was placed on the case of Shiam Sunder Lal v. Badhu Lal (1914) 12 A.L.J. 794.4. The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and held that the suit could not fail on the ground of non-joinder but t...
Kunwar Nihal Singh Vs. Chanda Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All358
1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits for pre-emption brought in respect of two different transactions. The decision in one case is likely to affect the decision in the other. It appears that Musammat Kesar was the owner of a certain share in mahal khas of the village Anwalkhera. On the 26th May, 1919 she sold that share to Kunwar Nihal Singh, and a suit was brought by the present plaintiffs-respondents for the preemption of that property, alleging that the consideration specified in the deed of sale was bolstered up to defeat their pre-emptive right.2. During the pendency of that suit; Kunwar Nihal Singh, the defendant-vendee obtained a deed of gift of plot No. 221 khasra measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in mahal khas of the same village from Daryai Singh and Balwant Singh, the brothers of the deceased husband of Musammat Kesar. That deed of gift was set up by Kunwar Nihal Singh as a shield against the claim of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, however, sought to pre-emp...
Abdul Rahman Vs. Abdul Rahman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All380; 87Ind.Cas.51
Daniels, J.1. This judgment relates to three connected appeals which have been laid before a Full Bench because of the extreme importance of the questions involved. The appeals challenge the validity of certain sections of the U.P. Municipalities Act. All three arise out of a contested election for seats on the Municipal Board of Muttra which was held in the early part of 1923. There were four candidates for three seats. A poll was held and the appellant, Abdur Rahman, son of Ismail, was one of the persons declared to be elected. Section 22 of the U.P. Municipalites Act, 1916, provides a special tribunal for the decision of disputes arising out of a Municipal election. Under the provisions of that section the respondent, Abdur Rahman, son of Zahuri, presented a petition against the election of the appellant, urging that it was vitiated by various corrupt practices. This petition was heard and determined by the Commissioner as an election Court under the provisions of the Act. The Commi...
Gajadhar Singh Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All421; 87Ind.Cas.647
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit and that the defendants have no right therein except as representatives of the mortgagee.2. The Court of first instance decreed the claim and disallowed the various objections raised by the defendants.3. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on three grounds:(1) That the suit was barred by time;(2) That the suit was barred under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; and(3) That the claim was barred by the provisions of Section 233(K) of the Land Revenue Act.4. The facts of this ease are slightly complicated and it is necessary to refer to them briefly.5. Dilsukh and Mansingh were two brothers and in 1876 they made a mortgage of their 3/16th share each in favour of the plaintiff's ancestor for a sum of Rs. 700 each. Subsequently Dilsukh died and in 1896, his widow, Mt. Phulo, and Mansingh made a secon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »