Allahabad Court April 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.
Girdhari Lal and ors. Vs. Khare Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All795
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for profits which has been dismissed on account of the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.2. On the 1st of August 1916, the plaintiffs first instituted a suit for arrears of profits for the years 1321 and 1322 Faslis. That suit was decreed and we are not now concerned with its merits. Subsequent to the first of August 1916, the present suit was instituted for arrears of profits for the year 1323 Fasli. The plaintiffs themselves in the plaint alleged their cause of action to have arisen on the 1st of August 1916. The Courts below have held that, as the right to sue had accrued on the 1st of August 1916, it was the duty of the plaintiff to include their present claim in the previous claim, and that they, not having done so, have rendered their subsequent suit liable to be dismissed under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.3. Under the fourth schedule, group (b), of the Agra Tenancy Act, the time from whi...
M. Mahadeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All126
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises under the following circumstances: The appellants who were the plaintiffs in the Court of first instance sued to recover the site of a certain house on the following allegations The house belonged to fixed-rate-tenant, viz., Sitla Bakhsh, that he having died, his wife inherited the tenancy, and that she on 25th April 1917 sold her occupancy rights to the respondent as also her residential house. The plaintiffs, who are the landlords of the village, urge that there is no custom in the village justifying the transfer of the site of the house and asked the defendant to remove the materials and to vacate the site. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below. The appellate Court was of opinion that there was no custom by which a transfer of the site could be effected but it was also of opinion that the house was purchased because the purchaser of the tenancy had no suitable place to live in for the purpose of cultivating the land. Indeed the learned Subo...
Jai NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Mandhai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All64
Mukerji, J.1. Two of the plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. Originally there were three plaintiffs: the appellants and one Ori. Ori withdrew from the claim at an early stage of the suit which was dismissed by the Court of first instance. Ori and the father of the appellant No. 2, Bhagwati, claimed to be the sons of Gaya Singh and on foot of that right claimed the property. The appellant No. 1 Jai Narain is a transferee from them and is a party as such. The suit having been dismissed, Jai Narain alone appealed to the lower appellate Court and he did not make Bhagwati a party. In the grounds of appeal no doubt Jai Narain stated that he was appealing under Order 41, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. The learned District Judge considered the question whether he should pass a decree (the appeal succeeding) in favour of the Jai Narain alone or also in favour of Bhagwati. Considering the point, he came to the conclusion that he should pass a decree in favour of only Jai Narain.2. In this Cou...
Chunni and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All153
Stuart, J.1. This appeal raises a question of importance to the zemindars and the tenants of the village of Vaira Firozepur in the Bulandshahr District, The suit was brought by one of the zemindars against 12 occupancy tenants for damages on the allegation that they had without right cut and removed 11 trees of spontaneous growth standing upon their occupancy holdings. It is to be noted that the plaint laid stress on the fact that they had misappropriated these trees and alleged that their acts were contrary to law and justice. The suit was for damages for Rs. 100. It was originally filed in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Bulandshahr but was transferred to and decided by an Honorary Munsif.2. The Honorary Munsif found that in the village in question certain tenants (the defendants belonging to that class of tenants) had a right to cut trees of spontaneous growth standing on their fields and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and his appeal was heard by a Subordinate ...
Nehal Singh Vs. Jagannath Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All743
Mukerji, J.1. Briefly, the facts involved in this appeal are these: The plaintiff's father purchased the shares of the descendants of one Amjad in a hamlet appertaining to khewat No. 1 in a certain mahal described in paragraph 1 of the plaint at an auction sale held on the 16th of July, 1910. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen on the last day of limitation against the appellant who was a co-sharer in the mahal. The statement in the plaint was that the defendant took possession of the purva without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff stated that he was in possession and was dispossessed, but did not state when he got possession and when he was dispossessed.2. The appellant's defence was mainly the following:The auction sale was held through an amin and this was in contravention of Section 193, Clause (1) of the Tenancy Act and the sale did not pass any title to the plaintiff ;(2) the suit is barred by time;(3) the share purchased by the plaintiff is less...
In Re: a Vakil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All641
Mears, C.J.1. There is no doubt that you and the counsel who have represented the respondent have acted wisely in the course which has been followed. We wish this case to be clearly understood and not to be twisted into something quite different from the reality. It is not a case in which we have asked the respondent to come forward and to justify a pleading which he had a perfect right to make; it is a case of quite a different nature. A client who consults a counsel and who requires a plaint or written statement to be drafted instructs the counsel as to the facts of the desired document. It unfortunately does not always happen that those facts are true, but from the counsel's point of view that is not a material matter, and indeed, if one looks at pleadings in cases generally, it is obvious that a plaint and the written statement cannot both be true because an issue or issues arise out of the denials of the truth of the averments on one side or the other and that enables the case to ...
(Munshi) Shib Ram Vs. Faqira and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All705
Mukerji, J.1. This is a case involving a very important point of principle and should be decided by a Bench of two Judges at least.2. One of the plaintiffs is the appellant in this Court. The plaintiffs brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on the allegation that they were the owners of a certain house and its appurtenant buildings, that they let out a portion of that house and building to the respondent, the defendant in the case, on a rent of Rs. 5 per mensem, that the defendant paid only a part of the rent due, that a notice to quit was served on the defendant and that he had failed to vacate the portion occupied by him. The plaintiffs accordingly sued to recover the arrears of rent and a small amount as damages for mesne profits. The plaintiffs brought their suit on a Court-fee, calculated on Rs. 60, viz., a year's rent, under the provisions of Sub-clause (cc), Clause 11 of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act. They valued their suit at Rs. 60 so far as the claim for po...
Bijai Vs. Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All45
Piggott, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of two suits which were tried together. There was a dispute between Bijai and his brother Narain about a certain occupancy holding. Bijai claimed to be a joint tenant along with Narain. Bach of them brought a suit in the civil Court to enforce his own claim. The first Court decided in favour of Bijai, but that decision was reversed on appeal. On the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court I am satisfied that the second appeals filed by Bijai in this Court are not maintainable. In one of the memoranda of appeal reference is made to Section 187 of the Agra Tenancy Act. As a matter of fact, that section does not apply, because there is no article of the schedule to the Act under which a suit or application could have been made by these rival claimants to an occupancy holding, which would have brought the dispute between them to a determination. In any case the plea comes with an ill grace from Bijai, who has himself invoke...
In Re: B. Raj Bahadur Jain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.179
1. There is no doubt that you and the Counsel who have represented the respondent have acted wisely in the course which has been followed. We wish this case to be clearly understood and not to be twisted into something quite different from the reality. It is not a case in which we have asked the respondent to come forward and to justify a pleading which he had a perfect right to make it is a case of quite a different nature. A client who consults a Counsel and who requires a plaint or written statement to be drafted instructs the Counsel as to the facts of the desired document. It unfortunately does not always happen that those facts are true, but from the Counsel's point of view that is not a material matter, and indeed if one looks at pleadings in cases generally it is obvious that a plaint and the written statement cannot both be true because an issue or issues arise out of the denials of the truth of the averments on one side or the other and that enablefe the case to be fought upo...
Baldeo Ram and anr. Vs. Kunkun Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All808
Piggott, J.1. This is an appeal by two plaintiffs whose suit for possession of a certain house and recovery of rent has been dismissed by two Courts. The first question raised is whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court can be accepted as one which complies adequately with the requirements of the law on the subject. Obviously the learned District Judge, having heard the arguments in the case, thought so little of the plaintiffs' claim that he could not be troubled to deal with the points taken in the memorandum of appeal before him systematically or in any detail. He did, however, apply his mind to the most crucial point in the case. The title of the plaintiffs came to them from one Chhedi, who claimed as heir under the Hindu Law of one Sukh Lal. The plaintiffs had to prove Chhedi's title, failing which their suit could not succeed. Now, the plaintiffs' case was that Chhedi was the son of one Khedu, and that Khedu and Sukh Lal were brothers, the sons of one Behari. On the othe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »