Allahabad Court November 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.
Sukhbir Singh Vs. Mangeisar Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All252
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a house situated at Hardwar which has been acquired by the plaintiff under a sale-deed, dated 27th October 1914, from one Madho Rao. The plaintiff's case is that this house, along with certain jagirs situated in the Gwalior State belonged to one Nil Kanth Rao who died sometime before 1913. His widow, Mt. Anandi Bai, with permission of the Darbar, adopted Madho Rao as her son. It is an admitted fact that at the time when Madho Rao was adopted namely in 1913, he was a married man having several children and his parents were dead. He, therefore, either gave himself in adoption or he was given in adoption by the prohit who performed the ceremonies. Among the contesting defendants was Ganga Prasad who is in actual possession of the house and who denied the validity of the alleged adoption. Defendant No. 5 is Mt. Anandi Bai, who has since this adoption repudiated it and adopted another son. Defend...
Govind and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All270
Kendall, J.1. This is a reference from the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore at Banda, recommending that the conviction of the applicants be set aside. The applicants in the Judge's Court were three in number: Govind, Bodhi and Tutar. One Shyam Lal lodged a complaint against them under Sections 342 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate proceeded against them under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, but after recording the evidence for the prosecution he came to the conclusion that the offence was not under that section but under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, refrained from framing a charge, and proceeded to complete the hearing as if the case had been a summons case and not a warrant case. The result was that the accused had no opportunity of resummoning the prosecution witnesses for cross-examination after the charge.2. The learned Judge has pointed out that this proceeding of the Magistrate was irregular, and has referred in partic...
Pahlad Koeri Vs. B. Mohar Gobind Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All278
1. The appellant here was a plaintiff in the Court of first instance and the suit was a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale carried out by a deed dated the 22nd of May 1923. Having regard to date of the sale it is clear that the provisions of the Agra pre-emption act, U.P. Act, 11 of 1922, governed the case. By this sale-deed the Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 purported to transfer certain shares in three khatas, Nos. 4, 2 and 20, to the Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3.2. The plaintiff came into Court and asked for pre-emption of the share situated in Khata No. 4. He declared in his plaint that he was not entitled to any preferential right of purchase in respect of the shares in Khatas Nos. 2 and 20. In the first paragraph of his plaint the plaintiff alleged that he was a co-sharer with the vendor in Khata No. 4. He admitted that the 1st defendant Mohar Gobind Rai, was a co-sharer in Nos. 2 and 20 but he alleged that this defendant had no share in Khata, No. 4. As regards the second and third...
Ram Sarup Rai and ors. Vs. Charitter Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All338
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. Not with standing the argument of Dr. M.L. Agarwala. I remain unconvinced that the decrees of the Courts below are wrong.2. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent, Charitter Rai, for the redemption of a mortgage dated the 28th of May, 1912, executed by Charitter Rai and his brother Nihora Rai, in respect of two plots of land, in favour of Subedar Rai, father of Defendant No. 3. After the date of the said mortgage, it appears that Ram Sundar Rai, son of Nihora Rai, alone executed a sale-deed of the entire zemindari property including the plots in dispute in favour of Defendant No. 4 on the 13th of May 1921. Thereafter, on the 20th of May 1921, Ram Sundar Rai applied to the Revenue Court, that mutation of names be effected in favour of Defendant No. 4 with respect to the property transferred to him by the sale-deed referred to above. Charitter Rai who admittedly was the owner of half of the share in the property conveyed by the ...
Secretary of State Vs. Firm Thakur Das-ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All316
Boys, J.1. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has decreed the plaintiff's suit for a refund, on the ground that the alteration in the freight rates was not published. He says:No circular issued to the Railway staff, without due publication could affect, the plaintiff's right to get his goods carried at the rats entered in the Goods Tariff then in force,2. The Secretary of State has applied in revision to this Court urging that publication of a change in freight rates is not necessary in order to bind the public by that change. The lower Court has not suggested under what law it holds that publication is necessary. I have had the advantage of hearing the learned Government Advocate for the Secretary of State, but the plaintiff-respondent has not seen fit to be represented.3. The only provision which the learned Government Advocate can draw to my attention, or which I can find in the Railways Act calling for publication, is Section 47(1)(g). That and its related provisions re...
Mt. Shibbi Vs. Hardhian Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All378
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that she is entitled to certain property. There was an alternative prayer that in the event of it being found that she had lost possession of the property the decree should be one for possession. The circumstances of the suit are as follows: The owner of the property was originally one Ramjas. The plaintiff, Mt. Shibbi brought a suit for possession against him and obtained a decree on the 8th of May 1915. The decree was executed and the plaintiff obtained possession on the 27th of September 1915. Subsequent to this Ramjas executed a simple mortgage-bond in favour of Hardhian Singh, the plaintiff-respondent, in respect of half the property sold to plaintiff. Hardhian Singh brought a suit on the basis of this mortgage against Ramjas and therein impleaded Mt. Shibbi the plaintiff. Mt. Shibbi pleaded that the property had been sold to her by Ramjas before Ramjas executed the mortgage...
Gulab Rai and anr. Vs. Girwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All221
1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the owners of the village lands of Jia Nagla to recover from the owners of the villages lands of Timaria Ghat a considerable area of land transferred from one side of the Mahewa river to the other as the result of a change in the course of the stream. The plaintiff Girwar Singh himself admits that the custom of dhardhura prevails between the village of Jia Nagla and Timaria Ghat, and there is abundant documentary evidence dating back to the first settlement to prove this fact. The meaning of the custom of dhardhura is that the deep stream is to be regarded as the boundary between two villages. The custom is sanctioned in Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation 11 of 1825, which lays down in the second section thatwhenever any clear and definite usage...may have been immemorially established, for determining the rights of the proprietors of two or more contiguous estates divided by a river (such as that the main channel of the river dividing ...
Mt. Kubra Begam and ors. Vs. Fazal HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All268
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises of a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of Rs. 500 on account of the dower-debt due to Nur Jahan who was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 in the suit. Mt. Nur Jahan was married in or about the year 1908 to Aminuddin and the dower fixed at the time of the marriage was Rs. 500. By a deed, dated the 23rd of February 1909, Aminuddin promised to pay the said sum on demand and mortgaged certain immovable properties as security for the amount. Aminuddin died on the 22nd of April 1919, leaving the defendants to the suit as his heirs. Mt. Nur Jahan transferred all her rights under the deed of 1909 to the present plaintiff on the 31st of October 1919, and the present suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent on the 19th of April 1922.2. Various pleas were taken in defence, but the only point with which I am concerned in the present appeal is the plea of limitation. The defendants maintained that the document dated the 23rd of...
Shera Vs. Hait Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All756
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of plot No. 904 of village Shahpur. The plaintiffs are admittedly in possession of the said plot. The defendant filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiffs in the revenue Court on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the non-occupancy tenants of the said plot, and on the plaintiffs raising a plea to the effect that they were in proprietary possession of the plot, they were required to have their title established from the civil Court and hence the suit.2. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiffs were in possession of the plot in dispute as non-occupancy tenants on behalf of the defendant and that the suit was barred by Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act.3. Neither of the Courts have recorded a finding on the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the plot in dispute. The trial Court ...
Askari Hasan Vs. Jahangiri Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All167
ORDERPullan and Dalal, JJ.1. In this appeal a question arises as to whether the respondents' right has abated; owing to the death of Bilas Rai, who was the original decree-holder in a mortgage suit. The decree which was passed was a compromise decree and allowed for payment of the mortgage money in instalments. According to the view take by the Allahabad High Court in Jagarnath Umar v. Ram Karan Singh A.I.R. 1922 All. 396 the proceedings were not concluded by that decree but it was necessary to go on and obtain a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If this view is followed the present suit must be held to have abated as the applicants did not have their names put on record within three months of the death of Bilas Rai. The lower Court has followed a ruling of the Calcutta High Court, Bechu Singh v. Bicharam Sahu [1909] 10 C.L.J. 91, and certain other rulings, both of the Calcutta and the Patna High Courts, which appear to be in direct conflict with the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »