Allahabad Court February 1925 Judgments
Durga Prasad Vs. GangadIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All502
Lindsay, J.1. We have beard the learned Counsel or the appellant in this case. The appellant is the purchaser.2. It appears that on the 16th June, 1922, the 2nd and 3rd defendants sold the-property in suit to the lab defendant. The plaintiff then brought his suit for preemption and after the institution of the suit and while the suit was pending the purchaser reconvened the property to the vendor.3. Both the Courts below have allowed the plaintiff's claim and given him a decree for pre-emption. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that inasmuch as the purchaser had during the pendency of the suit re-conveyed the property to the vendor that transaction could not affect the result of the suit inasmuch as the doctrine of lis pendens applied. In our opinion that was a correct view to take. We have been, referred to a good many rulings of this-Court. But it has been held that the doctrine of lis pendens does apply to preemption suit and it has been so applied it man...
Tag this Judgment!Ch. Sagar Singh Vs. Sri Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All491
1. We have heard the learned Counsel in this case and we think the decree of the lower Appellate Court ought not to stand. In our opinion on the terms of the wajib-ul-arz the plaintiff was entitled to pre-emption. We cannot agree with the opinion of the two Courts below in this matter.2. The wajib-ul-arz was one which was prepared at the settlement of M. Nasir Ali which took place about the year 1870.3. Under the term 'Custom' as recorded in that document the first class of pre-emptors consists of own brothers, the second class, of near brothers, and the-third class consists of 'Hissadaran patti aur gaon ke'.4. The village in which the property in dispute is situated is Kharkhauda, and it would appear from the evidence that this village, which was undivided at the time the wajib-ul-arz was prepared, has been divided into several mahals. One of these mahals is mahal Sagar Singh which is named after the plaintiff, and it is admitted that the property sought to be preempted is included in...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ishwari Prasad and ors. Vs. Babunandan Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All495
1. These are four connected appeals arising out of one single suit. We need not go into the circumstances under which four appeals have come to be filed. As a matter of fact a learned Judge of this Court disposed of all the questions now in controversy in one single judgment, and the appeals before us challenge certain of his findings. The essential facts are that the last male owner of zamindary property, consisting of an 8 annas shave in a certain village, was one Sheo Dayal. He died without male issue. He left him surviving two widows and a daughter by each of them. The names of the widows are Mt. Gajra and Mt. Baohna. Of these the latter survived the former. The name of the daughter of Mt. Gajra is Chhutka, and Mt. Gaura is the daughter of Mt. Bachna. One Pashpat Nath was the son of Mt. Chhutka. On the 6th of June, 1871, Mt. Bachna, being then in possession of the entire eight annas share, executed with the concurrence of Pasbpat Nath a deed of gift, by which she purported to trans...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Baksh and ors. Vs. Mahammad Ishaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All436; 87Ind.Cas.484
Mukerji, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the appeal presented before the lower Appellate Court was within time. That Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time-barred.2. The facts briefly are these : The decree sought to be appealed against was passed on the 22nd of September, 1922. The appeal was filed on the 27th of November, 1922. A copy of the judgment was applied for on the 23rd of September, 1922, and a notice was given of the copy being ready on the 23rd of October of the same year. The decree was for partition and had to be engrossed on a stamped paper. The successful plaintiff did not provide the stamp paper till a very late date. On the 15bh of November, 1922, an application was made for a copy of the decree to be appealed against. As a matter of fact, the decree was not signed by the learned Subordinate Judge who passed it till 25th of November, 1922. A copy was made of the decree on the same date and was handed over to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Kandhaiya Singh Vs. Kundan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All486; 87Ind.Cas.257
Mukerji, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is one of law, namely, whether the present suit is barred' as res judicata on account of a previous judgment.2. The facts involved in the point of law-are briefly these:The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance, brought a. suit in the year 1917 against the defendant-appellant for the setting aside, inter alia, of a sale-deed, executed by her on the 13th of April, 1914, in favour of the-appellant. She said that the sale-deed was a fictitious one, that no title was meant to pass by it, that although it was on the face of it, for the sum of Rs. 2,000, she got no portion of the consideration, money, that her statement before the Sub-Registrar that she had received a consideration of Ra. 1,600 was false and that the sum of Rs. 400 that was actually handed over to her before the Sub Registrar, had been returned by her after the registration of the document was over. On these allegations, she sought ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Prasad Misra and ors. Vs. Baldeo Prasad Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All593; 87Ind.Cas.679
Stuart, J.1. The plaintiffs to this suit were purchasers of certain plots in a village in the Gorakhpur district. At the time of purchase they obtained the equity of redemption only over the plots now in dispute. The plots had been mortgaged with possession to two persons called Prabhakar defendant-appellant No. 2 and Rajbali deceased, the father of Ram Niwas Misir defendant-appellant No. 4. In 1912 the plaintiffs sued to redeem the plots over which they had purchased the equity of redemption. Rajbali having died and being represented only by Ram Niwas the mortgagees sued were Prabhakar and Ram Niwas. The matter was decided amicably under a compromise and a decree was drawn up on the 11th March, 1913, declaring the mortgage redeemed and assigning the plots in question to the plaintiffs. This decree was against Prabhakar and Ram Niwas. The plaintiffs obtained physical possession over these plots and cultivated them.2. Subsequently Prabhakar and Ram Niwas with Bhagwati Prasad and Radhaka...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdullah Khan Vs. Kundan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All817; 87Ind.Cas.197
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent claimed by the lambardar in respect of the years Rabi 1324 to Kharif 1327 F. The sole question for determination is whether the lambardar is entitled to recover.2. The history of the village has been given in detail by the learned Assistant Collector who decreed the suit. The learned District Judge, in his appellate Judgment, writes that all the facts found by the learned Assistant Collector in his judgment were accepted before him. Indeed, the question is only one of inference to be drawn from admitted facts.3. The admitted facts appear to be these. The mahal Abu Bakar Khan was divided by an imperfect partition into two pattis, viz., patti Khudaija Bibi and patti Abdullah Khan. The plaintiff-appellant was recorded as the lambardar in the divided mahal as he had already been the lambardar of the undivided mahal. In the patti Khudaija Bibi, Khuadaija Bibi herself had been making collections on behalf of herself and other...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Abdul Hamid Khan Vs. Uda and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All161; 90Ind.Cas.906
Mukerji, J.1. This and the connected Appeals Nos. 1090 to 1093 are third appeals from a decree of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class.2. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Panna Lal that no third appeal lies. His contention is supported by the case of Lachmi Narain v. Narotam Das (1906) 29 All 69. Mr. Gulzari Lal relies on the case of Chhajmal Das v. Sirya (1906) 3 ALJ 625. That is a judgment by a single Judge while the opinion expressed in the case of Lachmi Narain v. Narotam Das (1906) 29 All 69 is by two Judges. This case was re-affirmed by a Bench of two Judges, in this Court in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Latif Hussain (1916) 38 All 181.3. I hold that no third appeal lies and dismiss this appeal with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Prasad and ors. Vs. Gulab Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All563; 87Ind.Cas.662
Lindsay, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought in order to avoid a certain transfer of what was alleged to be joint family property made by one Madhuban Das on the 27th November, 1903.2. The suit was brought by two sons of Madhuban Das and one son of Sri Kishen who was the brother of Madhuban Das. Sri Kishen himself was arrayed as a defendant in the case.3. It is not necessary for me to enter into the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal for a question of limitation has now arisen on the case put forward by Dr. Sen who appears for the respondents. According to this argument the suit was in reality time-barred, and so it appears to be having regard to the recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ranodip Singh v. Parmeshwar Prasad decided by the Judicial Committee on the 17th of November, 1924.4. The principle laid down by their Lordships in that case, is that if at the date of the transfer there was in existence any person who had a cause o...
Tag this Judgment!Lalla Babu and anr. Vs. Lal Bahadur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All565; 87Ind.Cas.569
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal concerns itself only with the question, viz., what is the property that is going to be sold?2. Certain persons being members of a joint Hindu family with the appellants mortgaged their property described in the plaint as mauza Muhammadpur Bayar, pargana Budaun, comprising a 15 biswas share entered in the khewat as holding No. 1, bearing a jama of Rs. 931-6-6. Certain issues arose between the parties and one of the questions raised was whether the mortgagors had any interest in the property which was not liable to be sold. The nature of that interest claimed as unsaleable, will be considered presently. A second appeal was heard by this Court and after an amendment of the decree appealed against, the appeal was remanded for disposal of the issue which is now to be finally disposed of by this Court.3. It appears from the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, that is to say, the judgment under appeal, that the ancestors of the mortgagors were originally assignees...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »