Allahabad Court June 1925 Judgments
(Mohammad) Shafiq Ullah Khan Vs. Nuhullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All48
1. This appeal comes before this Bench on account of a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court who heard the appeal in the first instance from the Court of a Subordinate Judge. The two learned Judges having differed, this appeal was filed under Section 10 of the Letters Patent.2. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the defendants-respondents are the legitimate sons of one Enayat Ullah Khan. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge there were a few other points of difference between the parties, but those points do not any longer arise. Enayat Ullah Khan died on 30-4-1916, and left him surviving several brothers, a son, the plaintiff-appellant, and the defendants who claim to be the step-brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case, as made in the plaint, was that the defendants were the children of one Mt. Durga Dhobin, the wife of one Cheta and it was doubtful whether their father was Enayat Ullah. As the case proceeded, the position taken...
Tag this Judgment!Raggha Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All627
Mears, C.J.1. This is the appeal of Raggha, caste Kurmi, age 24, from the conviction of the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukbabad, who, on the 21st of April 1925, sentenced him (Raggha) to death in respect of the murder of one Mangli.2. The curious feature about this case, and which rendered it advisable, in my opinion, to seek the assistance of a third Judge, wag that the body of Mangli was never recovered.3. The facts can be stated very shortly. There had been a long standing quarrel over a piece of land in Balipurwa Raggha, with the aid of other people, had forcibly dispossessed Mangli. Mangli had recourse to the Courts, and on the 5th of December, 1924, he being the plaintiff in a suit, was declared by a judgment on that date to have the right to the possession of this land. That decision, and possibly another circumstance connected with Mangli, namely, that he was said to have taken a Gadaria woman into his keeping, may have made Maogli an object of enmity to a number of people. B...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari and ors. Vs. Adit Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All34
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment in the Revenue Court. It appears that on a previous occasion the plaintiffs instituted a suit for ejectment which they withdrew without permission to institute a fresh suit. Subsequently they brought a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of an Assistant Collector, Second Class, and that suit was dismissed on the ground that the defendant-appellant was in fact a mortgagee, and not a tenant, of an agricultural holding. They then brought the present suit for ejectment of the defendant in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. The Court of first instance held that the decision in the former suit was not a bar to the present claim and decreed the suit on the merits. On appeal the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the only ground that the present suit was barred by Section 11 of the Civil P.C.2. As to the previous withdrawal of the suit for ejectment, the point...
Tag this Judgment!B. Bhagwan Rai Vs. Jaddu Raj Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All66; 88Ind.Cas.746
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of land comprising 5 dhurs by demolition of a wall 20 cubits in circumference and 5 cubits in height. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants without the permission of the zamindar had started constructing a gola (turret) 20 cubits in circumference and 5 cubits in height on the plaintiff's land, but that the wall had been completed and that it had not yet been covered with thatch. The defence was that the plaintiff was never in possession of this plot, and the claim was barred by time. In para. 7 of the written statement it was further pleaded that the defendants used to build or repair such a gola for storing chaff every year when it was damaged by rain or flood. The Court of first instance found that the construction was a new one and was on Plot No. 3 of which the plaintiff was the owner. It found against the defendants on the question of limitation and the question of estoppel, which p...
Tag this Judgment!Ballabh Das Vs. Sri Kishen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All90
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain property. The plaintiff alleged that he was the adopted son of Munna Lal and attained majority within three years of the suit. The defendant denied that the suit was within time and that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Munna Lal. There was a further plea that there had been a family settlement between Munna Lal and defendant Ballabh Das according to which the defendant was entitled to retain a larger share than half in Mouza Tond. Apparently there was some compromise, between the parties. On 11th July 1922 the defendant filed an application setting forth the terms of an alleged compromise which had been, entered into between the parties. This however was not signed by the plaintiff. The matter came up before the Judge and the plaintiff was asked about it. He agreed that all the paragraphs were correct except para. No. 4 which related to village Tond. With regard to that the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Piare Lal and anr. Vs. Sri Thakurji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All79
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit brought by them for the cancellation of a sale deed executed by their father on the ground that the transfer was not binding on the family.2. The Court of first instance decreed the claim but on appeal the learned District Judge has dismissed it. The findings of the lower appellate Court are that the father is still alive and is really running this case. It has further found that the defendant acted in a bona fide manner when he purchased the property. It has found that the sale consideration was fully paid and was binding on the family in its entirety. It has however pointed out that out of the sale consideration Rs. 1,600 had been left in deposit with the vendee for payment to a named creditor Hira Lal on account of an antecedent mortgage debt of 9th January 1917. The learned Judge has held that subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed, the plaintiff's father served a notice on the vendee informing him that ...
Tag this Judgment!Shib NaraIn Vs. Gajadhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All506
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was by one Shib Narain, who had purchased the rights of the mortgagor, for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated 21st May 1864 made by Govind Prasad in favour of Chaudhri Behari Lal. This mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 500 and was admittedly a usufructuary mortgage. It had been followed by a second mortgage on 14th August 1864 for Rs. 200 in favour of the same mortgagee. It recited the first mortgage for Rs. 500 and further declared that the mortgagor should not be entitled to redeem without discharging the second loan also.2. This was again followed by a third mortgage on 1st June 1867 in favour of the same mortgagee. It recited the prior total debt of Rs. 700; it referred to a subsequent 'mashrut-ul-rahn' document for Rs. 200 which was being taken back (and with which we are no further concerned) and then said that Rs. 99 was being taken in cash and for this total Rs. 299 the mortgagor was executing this fresh mashrut-ul-rahn (t...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhuri Shib NaraIn Vs. Gajadhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.772
Boys and Banerji, JJ.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. The suit was by one Shib Narain, who had purchased the rights of the mortgagor, for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage dated the 21st of May 1864 made by Govind Prasad in favour of Chaudhri Behari Lal.2. This mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 500, and was admittedly a usufructuary mortgage.3. It had been followed by a second mortgage on August 14th 1864 for Rs. 200 in favour of the same mortgagee. It recited the first mortgage for Rs. 500 and further declared that the mortgagor should not be entitled to redeem without discharging the second loan also.4. This was again followed by a third mortgage on June 1st, 1867, in favour of the same mortgagee. It recited the prior total debt of Rs. 700; it referred to a subsequent 'mashrut-ul-rahn ' document for Rs. 200 which was being taken back (and with which we are no further concerned) and then said that Rs. 99 was being taken in cash and for this total Rs. 299 the mortgagor was executing thi...
Tag this Judgment!Zahid Ali and anr. Vs. Sukhu Lonia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All87
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of suit brought by certain zamindars for recovery of proprietary possession over two plots of land. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants made some constructions without their information and permission on the larger plot, and that subsequently they built another house on the smaller plot. The defence raised by the contesting defendants was that with regard to the larger house their old house which stood on the site and had been of thirty years' standing fell down some years before the suit and the defendants repaired it on the old eight foundation. They denied the plaintiffs' allegation that it was built only a short time before the suit. As to the smaller house, their plea was that there was a thatched house on this site in which the defendants used to keep their chaff and tied their bullocks and buff aloes and which they, with the permission of the plaintiffs, converted into a tiled house some two years before the suit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamlapati Panth Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All27
Boys, J.1. In this case on the 10th of December 1924, a panchayat held under the U.P. Act (6 of 1920) convicted Kamlapati. Panth, Parkhotam Panth and Sheo Datt Panth under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay fines of Rs. 7, Rs. 5 and Rs. 5 respectively. The order of the panchayat refers to the statements of the complainant and two of his witnesses, and briefly to three witnesses produced on behalf of the accused. The order does not state whether the witnesses of the complainant or the witnesses of the accused are on their merits believed or disbelieved, but it continues 'on private enquiry, it appears that the accused used abusive language (against the complainant) and slapped him.'2. The next step was an application made by the accused to the Deputy Commissioner, Almorah, under Section 71 of the Local Act (VI of 1920). The principal objection set out in that petition to the order of the panchayat is to be found in paragraph No. 3 of the petition where it is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »