Allahabad Court December 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.
Ram Lal Koeri and ors. Vs. Panchu Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All813
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs appellants for an injunction against the defendants interfering with the plaintiffs' rights as occupancy tenants in plots Nos. 824, 825 and 728 in a certain village and for possession in case the Court held that they were out of possession.2. The plaintiffs' case was this. In the settlement of 1307 Fasli (1900 A.D.) the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants along with other persons had been incorrectly entered as occupancy tenants whereas really the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants: that in 1910 the plaintiffs (or their predecessors-in-interest) sued one Sunahi and Jaggu along with other persons for a declaration that the entry in the settlement papers was wrong: that the suit was compromised and that in execution of a decree based on the compromise the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest were given possession against the said Jaggu, Sunahi and other perso...
Ahmad Hakimullah Vs. Mohammad Hikmat Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All289
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan Law. There were two rival suits, one of which stands dismissed and has not come up before us. We are here concerned with the suit brought by the plaintiff Hakim-Ullah. The Court of first instance believed the plaintiff's evidence which was to the effect that as soon as he heard of the sale he shouted out: 'I am the pre-emptor and I demand pre-emption.' After that he took two witnesses, Muhammad Ibrahim and Munshi Farhat-Ullah, who were present at the time when he made the first demand, to the diwan-khana of the vendees, and addressing all the vendees he made a second demand in the following words:I am the pre-emptor and I demand pre-emption from all of you. As soon as I heard of the sale there and then I fulfilled the condition of pre-emption. After deducting the price of the materials which you have realized I would pay the price in full. Please take it from me and execute a sale deed.2. The lear...
Jawahir Gir Vs. Jagarnath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All760
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration, that a certain mango tree, that had been cut by the defendant, belonged to the plaintiff and for recovery of Rs. 30 on account of damages for the mango tree so cut. The plaintiff's case was that on the 21st September 1920, he purchased the tree in question from two persons Ganga and Khurbur, who owned that tree, and as such the defendant had no right to misappropriate the timber thereof. The defence to the suit was that the tree in dispute belonged to the defendant, and that in any case the vendors of the plaintiff had not a transferable right in the tree and the sale by them was absolutely void, and that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was fictitious and without consideration.2. The trial Court held that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was for consideration and that the defendant's allegation that the tree belonged to him and not to the vendors of the plaintiff was not correct. It furthe...
Abdul Karim Vs. Durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All305
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question of law involved in this appeal is, as to whether a mortgagor, who has failed to comply with the terms of a decree in a redemption suit filed by him, is entitled during the continuance of that suit, or before the final decree i n that suit has become incapable of execution, to maintain a second suit for redemption of the same mortgage. The trial Court answered the question in the negative and dismissed the suit. The decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, though not for the reasons assigned by the trial Court. In my judgment a second suit for redemption is not maintainable during the continuance of a previous suit for redemption of the same mortgage or until the decree in the former suit is in capable of execution.2. By the preliminary decree in a redemption suit, the mortgagor is allowed a period of six months within which he is required to pay the amount declared due, at the date of such d...
Sukh Nandan Sarup Vs. Fazal Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All412
Kendall, J.1. The only ground taken in this second appeal against the decision of the Courts below, by which the appellant was ordered to pay damages for the malicious prosecution of the respondent, is that the institution of proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, does not amount to a malicious prosecution. This question has, however, been settled by authority. In Crowdy v. O'Reilly [1913] 17 C.W.N. 554 a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in 1912 definitely decided that proceedings under Sections 144 and 145, Criminal Procedure Code, may constitute a prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant, so that damages may be claimed for malicious prosecution. No exactly similar decision in this Court has been pointed out to me, but a Bench in 1919 decided that proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, might form the basis of an action for damages Muhammad, Niazullah Khan v. Jai Ram [1919] 41 All. 503. An attempt has been made to differentiate proceedings under S...