Allahabad Court October 1926 Judgments
Ram Khelawan and ors. Vs. Banke Bihari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All517; 103Ind.Cas.367
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. While the suit was pending the defendants obtained a share under a document purporting to be a deed of gift and on the strength of it pleaded that they had equal rights with the plaintiffs so as to deprive them of any preference. The plaintiffs in their turn brought a second suit to pre-empt this transaction alleging it to be one of sale. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suits. On appeal the plaintiff's suit to pre-empt the sale-deed has been decreed but the other suit has been dismissed on a finding that the transaction was really one of gift. The defendants come up in second appeal and urge that in consequence of the finding that they had acquired a share in the mahal by virtue of a deed of gift the suit to preempt the sale ought to have been dismissed. This contention, in our opinion, must prevail. By reason of the acquisition of an additional share in the mahal by gift the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Mantoo Tewari and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All124
1. In our opinion Mr. Justice Boys has taken the right view in this matter, and, so far as this High Court is concerned, we declare that the provisions of Sections 263 and 264, in cases in which these sections are applicable, are not controlled by Section 355 Criminal Procedure Code. To attempt to apply them really introduces confusion and amounts to amending the Act. It seems to us that the matter is really quite clear, and has only been complicated by the decision in the case of Satish Chandra Mitra v. Manmatha Nath Mitra A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 165, with which we are unable to agree. Summary trials are dealt with in two different categories. Cases under Section 263 rare unappealable. In such cases the Magistrate need not record the evidence, and he is only bound to enter the particulars mentioned in the section. In Section 264 he has to do a little more, namely record a judgment embodying the substance of the evidence. There is nothing in that section compelling him to record the evidence....
Tag this Judgment!Birbal Vs. Collector of Moradabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All183
1. A reference was made by the Collector to the District Judge of Moradabad under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, being moved to do so by a person in whose favour an award was made by the Collector. The learned Judge fixed the award at the amount fixed by the Collector on the ground that the applicant had failed to make any claim after public notice under Section 9 of the Act, and therefore, the District Judge was precluded from making an award exceeding the amount fixed by the Collector under Section 25(2).2. Birbal, on whose application reference was made to the learned District Judge, has appealed to this Court. It appears that public notice under Section 9(2) was given as to the particulars of the land needed and calling upon persons interested to appear before the Collector. This notice was issued on 17th March 1922. Another notice was personally served on Birbal on the 26th April 1922. The date fixed for the hearing before the Collector was 8th May 1922. It is argued here...
Tag this Judgment!Bhukhan Singh and anr. Vs. Jagardeo Koeri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All197
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a house. The plaintiffs case was that the house in dispute belongs to one Debi Koeri, and on his dying issueless the plaintiffs, as zamindars, got possession of the house and were in possession since then till the year 1924, when the defendant took the house from the plaintiffs and began to store fodder in the house with the plaintiffs' permission. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that Defendant No. 1 now refuses to vacate the house and hence the plaintiffs were compelled to bring a suit. The defence of Defendant No. 1. who was the sole contesting defendant, was that on Debi having died issueless the house of Debi was in ruins and then two of the zamindars of the village, Bhukhan Singh, the plaintiff, and Sheotahal Singh settled the house with Umrao, the father of Defendant No. 1, on receipt of a nazrana of Rs. 50, and thereafter the defendant and his father built the house anew and are in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhani Ram and ors. Vs. Sumer Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All182
1. We think this appeal ought to be allowed. The matter is a simple one and arises out of proceedings taken tinder Section 144 of the Civil P.C. by Dhani Ram and others.2. These applicants are persons who took a transfer of certain property from a man named Sumer Chand.3. In the year 1918 a suit was brought against Sumer Chand and certain others by certain members of the family to which Sumer Chand belonged. That was a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to set aside certain dispositions of property made by Sumer Chand and his father Panna Lal who had been the head of a joint Hindu family of which the plaintiffs were members. In that suit the present applicants-appellants were impleaded as being transferees from Sumer Chand.4. That suit was successful in the Court of first instance which held that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the property in suit by avoidance of the transfers made by Sumer Chand and others.5. When that decree was passed the present petitioners-appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Laljit Vs. Tikam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All200
1. We think there is no merit in this appeal. The facts are very shortly stated. The respondent Tikam Singh brought a suit for arrears of rent against the defendant-appellant Laljit. In that suit Laljit set up a proprietary title to the land in respect of which the tenancy was alleged. The Court taking action under Section 199, Sub-section (1), Clause (v) of the Agra Tenancy Act directed Laljit by an order in writing to institute a suit within three months for the determination of the question of title raised by him. We are informed that he was also given the option of getting an, issue raised in a certain suit which then was pending. Whether it was open to the revenue Court to pass an order in the latter form may be questioned. But, at any rate, it is clear that Laljit complied with neither order. The result, therefore, necessarily was under Sub-section 2 of Section 199, that the question of title was decided against him. Here in appeal we are asked to say that the learned Judge took ...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Das Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All752
Lindsay, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, in which the property in dispute has been acquired by the Improvement Trust of Cawnpore.2. The appellant before us, Makhan Das claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000 a bigha. He is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector. The Tribunal which sat for the determination of his claim affirmed the award of the Collector. The appellant in his appeal before us complains that a proper method of calculation has not been observed in awarding him compensation, and he objects in particular to his being awarded compensation for a portion of the land in question as if it were merely agricultural land. So far as this portion of the land is concerned, the award is valued at Rs. 150 a bigha. The evidence is very scanty, but the following facts are established.3. The total area in dispute is 5 bighas, 2 biswas, 1 biswansi. The land is situated close to a main road from Cawnpore, apparently the Kalpi road. T...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawani Prasad Vs. Hakimullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All175; 98Ind.Cas.821
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondents for a permanent injunction directing the defendants not to interfere with the re-construction of the southern wall of the plaintiffs house as shown in a sketch map annexed to the plaint. The first Court took the evidence of the parties and made a local inspection. On the basis of this local inspection it decreed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal to the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bulandshahr the appellant requested the lower appellate Court to appoint a commissioner to make an accurate map and report. This request was granted. The lower appellate Court found the commissioner's map and report in conflict with the inspection note of the Munsif, and, accepting the commissioner's map and report as correct, came to a conclusion different from that arrived at by the first Court. The main ground on which the present second appeal is filed is thatthe lower appellate C...
Tag this Judgment!AlimuddIn and ors. Vs. Gobind Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All208
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order made by the Court below by which the value of the property directed to be sold has been assessed at a certain figure for the purpose of being inserted in the sale proclamation that is to be drawn up in pursuance of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 66, of the Civil P.C.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on behalf of the respondent that no appeal lies as the order complained of does not amount to a decree within the meaning of Sections 2 and 47 of the Civil P.C., and is not one for which an appeal is provided under Order 43, of the First Schedule to the Code. In support of this objection reliance has been placed on the case of Ajodhia Prasad v. Gopi Nath [1917] 39 All. 415.3. The learned Counsel for the appellants maintains that the order is one that comes within the purview of Section 47 of the Civil P.C., and as such, an appeallies against that...
Tag this Judgment!NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Desraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All784
1. It is necessary to give details of the devolution of the property in suit during different years in order to understand the matters in issue in this appeal. Mauza Chintapur Badah was prior to 1911 divided into certain thoks, one of which was thok Tursi Ram, in which Khayali Ram, ancestor of the plaintiffs, had a share. In 1901 Khayali Ram purchased at auction in execution of a decree a share in thok Chheda Lal belonging to one Shyam Lal. In 1911 there was a fresh partition of mauza Chintapur Badan, and a separate mahal formed of the property owned by Khayali Ram partly in thok Khayali Ram and partly in thok Chheda Lal. A separate mahal Khayali Ram was formed at that partition. Subsequently a subsequent mortgagee of the property of Shyam Lal in thok Chheda Lal brought a suit for sale making the purchaser Khayali Ram a party defendant to the suit. A decree was obtained and the decree-money was not paid. The property was put up to auction and was purchased by the subsequent mortgagee, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »