Allahabad Court February 1925 Judgments
Manni Lal Vs. Radhey Gopalji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All602; 87Ind.Cas.190
Piggott, J.1. The Taxing Officer's report.2. The suit, from which this appeal has arisen, was brought by the plaintiff No. 3 with and on behalf of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 who are idols for the following reliefs:(a) It may be held that defendant has no power to supervise and manage the properties of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and it may be declared that the plaintiff No. 3 is the lawful manager of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2.(b) The defendant may be restrained by means of a perpetual injunction from supervising and managing the property of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and from entering the property of the plaintiffs.(c) The moveables of the plaintiff No. 1 that may be proved, may be recovered.(d) The costs may be awarded.(e) Any relief other than relief (a) which it may be deemed just to grant with any addition or alteration may be granted. The plaintiffs will pay on it any court fee that is deemed necessary to be paid.3. The suit was valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 26,500 as a va...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Basant Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All746; 87Ind.Cas.444
Stuart, J.1. Manna and others mortgaged certain zamindari plots of an area of about 12 bighas in favour of Jhak and Ramnandan Lal. The mortgagors transferred all their rights to Basant Lal. Basant Lal has redeemed half the mortgage and is mortgagor in respect of the remainder. The mortgagee rights in respect of the remainder have been soil to Mahadeo Pande in execution of a decree. Mahadeo Pande's name has been entered as mortgagee in the khewat. He is thus a recorded co-sharer.2. The situation is now this: Basant Lal owns half the property and is mortgagee of the remainder. Mahadeo, the present appellant is the mortgagee of the remaining half. These remarks apply only to the area in dispute. That area is recorded as a portion of certain khata and in the remainder of the khata many other people are co-sharers.3. Mahadeo's grievance was this: the area in dispute is cultivated by tenants. When he endeavoured to collect rents from those tenants through the Courts, he was opposed and was u...
Tag this Judgment!Sundar Bibi Vs. Lal Rajendra NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All389
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal by Mt. Sundar Bibi who has obtained a decree against the respondent, Rajendar Narain Singh.2. In execution of this decree she applied for attachment of the interest of the judgment-debtor in certain property comprised in an estate known as the Raja Bazar Estate.3. The case for the decree holder was that the judgment-debtor had a vested interest in this property and she asked that that property be attached and brought to sale in execution.4. The judgment-debtor filed an objection contesting the application on various grounds The particular ground which we have to notice here is contained in the 4th paragraph of the petition held by the judgment-debtor. In that paragraph ha took the plea that the application for attachment and sale of his interest was not entertain able on the ground that ha had no vested interest in this property but only a contingent interest.5. The Subordinate Judge has decided this point in favour of the judgment-debtor and the judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!Rudra Pratab Singh and ors. Vs. Sarda Mahesh Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All588; 87Ind.Cas.322
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur directing the method in which an account of the mesne profits was to be taken as against the present appellants who were impleaded as the legal representatives of Baij Nath Prasad Singh deceased.2. On the 3rd of March 1915, a decree was passed for possession of certain property which, among other things, directed that an account shall be taken of the dealings of Baij Nath Prasad Singh with the disputed property and of the rents and profits arising there from, and that Baijnath Prasad Singh will pay to the plaintiff what may be found due to him on the taking of the said accounts. That decree was upheld by this Court, except as regards certain mow able property, on The 30th of May, 1916. There was a further appeal to His Majesty in Council which was dismissed on the 7th of February 1921. Before the decision of that appeal by the Privy Council, Baijnath Prasad Singh died. It is stated that he di...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Kishen and ors. Vs. Baldeo Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All247a
Stuart, J.1. The only points argued in this appeal are the points that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the sale was not for legal necessity.2. In respect of the first point the facts are very clear. Ram Kishen Ram, Das, Ram Subhag and Ram Karan the sons of Ram Raj brought a suit to set aside a sale which Ram Raj had made of certain ancestral property on the 18th February, 1907. The plaintiffs and Ram Raj are members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara Law. It has been found on the facts by the learned District Judge and this finding cannot be attacked in second appeal that Ram Kiahen was over twenty-one at the time of the institution of the suit and that the other three plaintiffs who were minors at the time of the institution of the suit had not been born at the time that the alienation was made. The suit was thus clearly time barred as far as Ram Kishen is, concerned.3. It is also time-barred in regard to the remainder as they were not in existence at th...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Singh Vs. Chiranji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All703; 87Ind.Cas.641
Mukerji, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the suit was maintainable or whether the plaintiffs-appellants' remedy lay in an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code to the executing Court.2. The facts of the case are given in the judgment of the Court below and are briefly these for the purposes of this judgment. The respondent No. 1 had a mortgage from one Har Prasad. This was dated 9th of August 1897. Har Prasad sold his share, which was four annas, to appellant No. 1 and the predecessor in-title of the remaining appellants. There was a pre-emption suit by Mt. Akbari Begum, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents other than the respondent No. 1, with respect to the four annas share sold by Har Prisad. Mt. Akbari Begum's suit was compromised and by that compromise Mt. Akbari Begum obtained two annas share out of four annas and the plaintiffs retained the remaining two annas. The plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title also held a mortga...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrup Pande and ors. Vs. Sarju Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All786; 87Ind.Cas.668
Mukerji, J.1. These two Appeals Nos. 986 and 987 of 1923 arise from similar circumstances, the only difference being that in one case the property in dispute is zamindari property and in the other case it is a tenancy.2. One Kanhaiya had six sons, one of these being Ramjas. The respondents in these appeals, who were the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance, are sons of Ramjas. They are suing to recover a sixth share in the property left by their grandfather Kanhaiya. It has been found as a matter of fact, that Kanhaiya died separate from his sons and grandsons. The question raised is whether Kanhaiya's property would go only to his sons or also to his grandsons by a deceased son.3. So far as zamindari property is concerned it is conceded that the defendants-appellants have no case. The property is bound to be divided into six shares and one share must go to the sons of Kanhaiya's deceased son Ramjas.4. So far as the tenancy is concerned it is contended that the nearer male descend...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Hashim and anr. Vs. Radha Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All687
Piggott, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances. A decree was passed by this Court in second appeal on the 4th of April, 1922, in favour of the appellants Sheik Muhammad Hashim and Baldeo Singh against the respondent Radha Kishun, conditional on payment of the sum of Rs. 1,940 within two months. The amount thus ordered to be paid was not paid into Court until the 21st of June, 1922 The Courts below were closed for the vacation between the 20th May, 1922, and the 20th of June, 1922. On the re-opening of the Court the deposit was made. The question between the parties arose whether in the circumstances the decree in favour of the appellants stood or vacated itself. The Courts below came to the conclusion, following two cases decided by this Court, that the appellants were bound to deposit the money in terms of the decree, and the fact that the Courts were closed was of no help to them.2. It has since been held by a Full Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that ...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Vs. Mangal Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All800; 87Ind.Cas.351
Stuart, J.1. The main question raised in these two applications in revision was whether in the particular circumstances of the revenue suit the District Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeals. But, as a preliminary, it is necessary to decide in the first place. Has this Court any right to interfere with his order in revision?2. There have been several decisions in this Court upon the latter point. The only Bench decision which has been placed before me is the decision in Gaj Kumar Chander v. Salamat Ali [1920] 42 All. 83. I was a member of the Bench which passed that decision. That decision laid down that this Court has no power to interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Civil P.C., or otherwise, with any order that has been passed originally or in appeal by a revenue Court or by a District Judge, in reference to questions decided under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, No. II of 1901.3. Ordinarily this would conclude the matter; but it has been argued by the learned Counse...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Raghunath Singh and ors. Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All439; 87Ind.Cas.558
Piggott, J.1. This suit arises out of an attempt made by the defendant, who is the zamindar of a mahal, to eject the plaintiffs from a grove situated on two specified plots of land within the area of the mahal of which the defendant is zamindar. On being sued for ejectment the owners of the grove pleaded full proprietary title in the same, whereupon they were required to establish the alleged title by suit in the Civil Court. The present suit has, therefore, been brought by the persons in possession of the grove whose ejectment was sought by the defendant-zamindar.2. The trial Court decreed the suit for the relief sought. The learned District Judge has set aside the decree of the trial Court and has granted a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners of the trees and enjoy the status of grove-holders but are not proprietors.3. In second appeal we have to deal in the main with two contentions. One is that the decision of the District Judge is based upon a misreading o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »