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.
Tulshi Dube and anr. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All156
1. It is admitted here by counsel on both sides that the only point for decision in this and the three connected appeals, Nos. 1147 and 1148 of 1924 and 10 of 1925, is whether the lower appellate Court was right in dismissing the plaintiff's suits only on the ground that the compromise on which his suit was founded was not registered. That compromise was embodied in a decree. But part of the matters compromised were extraneous to the matter in dispute in the suits. It was contended before the lower appellate Court on behalf of the respondent here that the omission of registration was a bar to the plaintiff's suit, in that he was debarred from relying on the compromise. That plea was accepted in the Court below. In view of the terms of Section 17(2)(6) of the Registration Act, we are unable to accede to this view. It is therein clearly laid down that nothing in the previous Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) applies to any decree or order of a Court It is impossible to contend h...
Mohammad Shabbir and anr. Vs. Zain-ul-abdIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All564
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendants from Plot No. 18/1 on the allegation that the defendants first party, who were the occupancy tenants of the said plot had without any right permitted the defendants second party to build a house on that plot, and the defendants second party had actually built a house and this action of the defendants was detrimental to the land and was in consistent with the purpose for which the land was let, and as such the defendants were liable to ejectment under Clause (b). Section 57 of the Tenancy Act.2. The main defence to the suit was that the house in question was situate, not on Plot No. 18/1, but on Plot No. 18/2 and as the plaintiffs had no concern with Plot No. 18/2 they had no right to maintain the suit. It was also contended by one of the defendants that the relation of zemindar and tenant did not exist between the plaintiffs and that particular defendant, and as such the suit was not...
Abdul Aziz and ors. Vs. Bajan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All176
1. On the facts found by the lower appellate Court this appeal must be decreed. The plaintiff zemindars sued for a declaration that the defendant-tenants were not entitled to cut the trees standing upon a particular plot of land within the zemindari of the plaintiffs. The findings of the lower appellate Court are that the land is occupancy land of the defendant's and that the grove was planted by the defendants without the permission of the plaintiffs.2. On these findings that Court came to the conclusion that the principle enunciated in Man Singh v. Madho Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 430 applied and the defendants were at liberty to cut the trees standing on the land.3. We do not agree with the deduction drawn by the lower appellate Court from its findings. In the present case it has been definitely held by the revenue Court in 1889 that there was no novation of contract after the tenant planted the trees. In that year the trees were standing on the land and the plaintiffs applied for the p...
Chhattar Singh and anr. Vs. Kamal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All16
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. I have read the judgments delivered by the other members of the Bench, and agree with them generally. I desire to make only two observations. In my opinion, an order made by a Judge upon an application which is still pending, that it be 'struck off,' or 'sent to the record room,' made either without notice to the decree-holder, or without giving him an opportunity of being heard, is a ministerial order, and cannot be regarded speaking generally as a judicial disposal of the application on the merits, though special circumstances may appear which make it so. Secondly, whether an application is in substance a fresh one, or an attempt to revive a former one, is, as a general rule, a question of fact to be decided with reference to all the circumstances of the case.Lindsay, J2. The question referred to this Full Bench for decision is one of limitation, namely whether an application made by the decree-holders on the 10th January 1923 was liable to be dismissed as being bey...
Umed Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All121
1. In this case the question that arises is whether the applicant broke certain ground in a protected forest in contravention of the Forest Act, and a notification issued thereon. The notification as issued only renders punishable the breaking of ground. It is admitted that the applicant cleared some ground. It is quite possible that in the course of clearing or after clearing the ground, he also broke it If indeed he dug up the root of a single tree he might be held to have broken the ground but there is no satisfactory evidence on which it could possibly legally be held that he broke any ground at all. There is some reference to a note-book of the Magistrate who inspected the ground, but any remarks in such a note-book would not be any evidence in the case.2. We are therefore unable to hold it to be proved or to find that the fact has been legally held to be proved that there was any breaking, nor is it possible to hold by any permissible interpretation that the word 'breaking' inclu...
Dwarka Prasad and anr. Vs. Bishambhar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All191
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The parties to this appeal are neighbours. The defendants' house is to the south of the plaintiff's house. On the first floor of the plaintiff's house there is a room in which there are many doors and there is a window towards the south of that room. Close to this window the defendants have made certain constructions by which the lower portion of the window to the extent of about 9 inches has been blocked. The defendants also intend to make some other constructions above the construction just referred to.2. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondent mainly on the allegation that the constructions made by the defendants interfered with the enjoyment of light and air through the window in the southern wall of the plaintiff's house and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for demolition of the said constructions. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that, if the defendants were allowed to make some other constructions above th...
Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Brij Raj Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All283
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land by ejectment of the defendants and by removal of a building erected by the defendants on a portion of the said plot.2. One Khushal Singh was admittedly the owner of the village in which the plot in dispute is situate. On his death he was succeeded by his two widows Lachmi Bai and Rani Raghubir Koer. It was alleged by the defendants, and for the purpose of this appeal, I will assume the allegation to be correct, that Lachmi Bai was in possession of the village in which the plot in dispute lies and of some more villages and the other widow, Rani Raghubir Koer was given possession of the remaining villages that belonged to Khushal Singh.3. The plaintiff-respondent is the adopted son of Khushal Singh and has now succeeded to the estate of Khushal Singh.4. The suit, giving rise to the present appeal, was brought by the plaintiff-respondent, mainly, on the allegation that the defendants-a...
Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All730a
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The applicant, Nazir Ahmad, was convicted under Section 330 read with Section 114, I.P.C. by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Pilibhit and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and was further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 2. The case against him was that when Nisar Husain, Rahim Baksh and Nishana were maltreating the complainant Dori for the purpose of committing extortion, he tacitly, if not actively instigated the commission of the offence by those persons, by expressing approval of their conduct in maltreating a tenant and by suggesting that the tenants having lost their heads, they should be given a sound beating. The point argued before me by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the facts disclosed by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the part taken by Nazir Ahmad do not constitute the offence of which he has been convicted. It is argued that, the remark of Nazir Ahmad to the effect, that tenants ought to be beaten...
Chotkanu Lal Vs. Ganga Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All219
1. The plaintiff's suit for sale against a Hindu mortgagor and his descendants, was dismissed on the ground that the money was not borrowed for legal necessity. In the hypothecation bond the recital was that money was wanted to pay a pre-emption decree and to defray other necessary expenses. It is in evidence that on the same date, the 16th July 1910, Rs. 2,000 out of the consideration of Rs. 3,000, was paid into Court which passed the pre-emption decree and the pre-empted property was acquired by the mortgagor Ganga Singh. As regards the balance of the consideration we agree with the lower Court that there is no satisfactory evidence to prove legal necessity thereof. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff urged that money was wanted for the payment of revenue and to redeem family ornaments. The evidence, however, has not been believed by the lower Court and we are not prepared to disagree when we ourselves have not had an opportunity of seeing the witnesses.2. The pre-empted property a...
ibrahim and anr. Vs. Jagdish Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All209
1. The plaintiff in this suit claims to recover a certain amount of money due on a mortgage-deed executed by one Ashraf Ali, and the question we have to decide is whether this suit is or is not within time. There is on the back of the mortgage-deed an endorsement purporting to have been made by Ibrahim, son of Ashraf Ali, which, if it is genuine, would appear to bring the suit within time. The Court of first instance found that the endorsement was suspicious and dismissed the suit but this finding was reversed by the lower appellate Court. Although, in Our opinion, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is somewhat cursory, we feel unable to reverse what is, in our opinion, a finding upon facts, namely, that the endorsement was made by Ibrahim.2. The second point argued before us is that even granting that the endorsement is genuine it can only be held to bind Ibrahim himself who paid the sum of Rs. 40 towards interest due on the bond and not his sister Mt. Siddiqan who along with h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »