Allahabad Court January 1926 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.
Gokul Nath Vs. Baram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All125
Daniels, J.1. In this case there is a concurrent finding of both the Courts below that there was a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace and that neither party was in possession of the property. After hearing arguments at the time of presentation of this revision application I, therefore, decided that there was no ground for revision of this part of the order and that the only part which was open to attack was that which also directed attachment of the moveable property in the math which was the subject of dispute. On this part of the order a notice was issued.2. It appears to me, however, on consideration that the jewellery and other moveable property must be treated as appurtenant to the math and that the order was properly passed in respect of it. There is a Patna case which is practically on all fours with the present casein which a similar view was taken. I refer to the case of Bharat Das v. Ram Charitar Das [1917] 1 Pat. L.J. 356. I accordingly hold that there is no gro...
Lala Jai NaraIn Vs. Jafar Beg and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1926
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.1017
1. This case has been argued at length before us and we are asked to interfere with the judgment of the Judge of this Court on the ground that he ought not to have decreed demolition of a certain structure in favour of the plaintiffs.2. The suit was a suit in ejectment, the plaintiffs alleging that the defendant had trespassed on a small portion of land belonging to them and had erected a building. The suit was filed in the month of November 1918 and the allegation in the plaint was that the defendant had begun to erect the building during the Civil Court vacation which in the year 1918 lasted from the 20th of September to the 19th of October 1918.3. The plaintiffs prayed for the ejectment of the defendant and also for the demolition of the construction just mentioned.4. The defence was that the land in suit was the property of the defendant and not of the plaintiffs, and a further plea was taken in para. 12 of the written statement to the effect that the claim of the plaintiffs was ba...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›