Allahabad Court February 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.
Lala Suraj Prasad Vs. B. Maheshwari Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.276
Daniels, J.1. The legal plea pressed in this appeal is based on Section 92 of the Evidence Act. One Mathura Nath transferred to the plaintiff in 1912 a portion of a house containing a latrine. It was agreed that as long as the latrine was in existence the vendor should have a right of easement in respect of it. Subsequently the adjoining portion of the house was sold to the defendant. The facts found by the Court below are that the latrine was afterwards removed by agreement of the parties from the portion of the house belonging to the plaintiff to the portion belonging to the defendant and that at the time when this change was effected, the plaintiff gave the defendant express permission to make a door on the side where the latrine had originally stood and to use this portion for passage of sweepers and flow of water. The appellant contends, as he contended in the Court below, that this was an agreement varying the terms of the sale-deed of 1912 and could only be made by a registered ...
Munshi Muhammad Nasir Vs. Roshan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.268
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that though there is a custom of pre-emption prevailing in the village the plaintiff has not the right to pre-empt as against the vendee.2. The plaintiff is not a co-sharer in the mahal in which the property sold is situate. He is, however, a proprietor in the village. The custom of pre-emption is recorded in the wajib ul-arz prepared about the year 1870 and is as follows:---'Every co-sharer has (a right) to transfer his haqiyat (property) by sale (first) to own brother and then to a qaribi ekjaddi (near rightful collateral) for a price which might be current at the time. If the transferor fixes a fictitious price in order to deprive the co-shares it will be caused to be settled by arbitrators. If no one wishes to purchase that property for the price fixed by the arbitrators, the proprietor shall be at liberty to sell it to any other co-sharer of the...
Kewal Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All421
Daniels, J.1. In this case the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is correct. A sanction for the prosecution of the applicant had been given in the year 1922, long before the amendment of the Criminal P.C. which radically altered the provisions of Section 195. Owing to the fact that the records were in the High Court in connexion with an appeal at the time when the application was filed in pursuance of the sanction, the Court below ordered that as it would require a considerable time for the case in High Court to be decided the papers should be deposited for the present and the complainant might file a fresh petition when the High Court appeal was decided. If it was merely a matter of the record being in the High Court the records would have been sent down to the Court below to enable this case to be disposed of if the Magistrate had applied for them. In any case no pending case should ever be postponed without a date being fixed. The High Court decided the appeal in April 1924. ...
Jai Chand Rai and anr. Vs. Jambu Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All427
1. We are of opinion that this appeal of Kawal Nain, Defendant No. 3 in the original suit, must be dismissed.2. The position is quite simple. There were three brothers who were joint. They fell out and agreed to a partition by arbitration in 1906 which subsequently was made a rule of Court in certain proceedings in 1908. The properties in dispute were two rooms and a part of a courtyard. The plaintiff brought a suit alleging that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had taken part of his share which fell to him under the partition. It appears that in point of fact the share that did fall to the plaintiff was sold in execution of a decree and brought by Defendant No. 3. It was said that Defendant No. 3 was acting as benamidar for the plaintiff. Be that as it may, Defendant No. 3 did not take any part in the proceedings in the Court of first instance. He was served, He had notice of the action. He must have been aware that if he wished to raise any defence it was his duty to come to the Court and rai...
Jangi Lal Vs. Mata Badal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All339
1. The decree-holder appellant obtained a decree for money against certain members of an agricultural tribe, holding landed property in tahsil Karchhana of the Allahabad district, to which the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act (Act II of 1903) is applicable. In 1920 he applied for the attachment and sale of the said landed property and got an attachment made: but before he could proceed with the sale of that property, an objection was made by the judgment-debtors that the property was not saleable under Section 16 of the Act. That objection was allowed and the decree-holder was directed to proceed with execution of the decree in some other way. A fresh application for execution was made by the decree-holder in which he asked for the attachment of the same and some other landed property again and further prayed that after it was attached the decree may be transferred to the Collector of Allahabad for the purpose of farming out the property on lease or making some other arrangements for th...
Charan Singh and ors. Vs. Ganeshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All352; 94Ind.Cas.1048
Lindsay, J.1. One Bijai Indar Singh was the owner of a share in mauza Kheria Gurdeo and a share in mauza Mirpur in the Aligrah District. On the 8th of November, 1906 he mortgaged these shares to one Menagal San as security for the sum of Rs. 8,000. From 1906 onwards he appears to have been in difficulties, and on the 19th of March 1912 one Kishen Singh had obtained a decree against him on a mortgage which decree was under execution in 1914. On the 19th of May 1914 Bijai Indar Singh sold the property Kheria Gurdeo to Shar Singh, the father of the plaintiffs, for the sum of rupees 33,000. In the conveyance from Bijai Indar Singh to Sher Singh occurs the following passage:The property sold is declared to be free from all kinds of claims, hypothecation liens and encumbrances, in that the entire amount due to Lala Mangal Sen and that due to Shrimati Ram Dei, wife of B. Sheo Prasad, vakil and Shrimati Ram Dei, wife of Bhola Nath, i.e., entire amount due under both the documents have bean lef...
Shiam Sunder Vs. Surtha Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All360; 95Ind.Cas.902
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers in the village Keshodaspur; and by a partition effected between them some years ago their shares were separated and the plaintiff was allotted land in three of the mahals formed at the time. The village did not contain any distinct abadi area within its limits. The site occupied by the houses of the tenants of Keshodaspur, Jogidaspur, Muradpur and Baldiya was common, and was surveyed as a part of the village of Baldiya and included in the record of rights of that village, but it was recorded that the said abadi site was the common or shamlat property of the sharers of the four villages aforesaid. In the Khasra of the village of Baldiya different plots were recorded as having been in the possession of different co-sharer of the said villages separately. But the fact remains that so far as the proprietary right or co-sharership was concerned the entire abadi site surveyed or included in Baldiya was the common property of...
Mohammad Yusuf Vs. Musammat Amtul Habib
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.31
1. This appeal arises out of au execution proceeding, and the preliminary question for consideration is whether the decree-holder has realised the decretal money in whole or in part by selling a portion of the property, which was liable for its payment. The decree-holder, Musammat Amtul Habib, is the widow of Rahim Baksh, who died leaving certain heirs who took possession of his estate. Musammat Amtul Habib tiled a suit for the recovery of her dower against them and got a decree for Rs. 5,000 on the 15th July 1912 enforceable against the assets left by Rahim Baksh deceased. In the plaint the lacy is said to have stated that if, after the payment of her dower debt, any assets of her deceased husband were left, she would afterwards sue for the recovery of her one-fourth share of the same.2. This decree has been under execution more than once. The judgment debtors paid Rs. 4,268 on the 7th October 1912, and subsequently sold certain property left by Rahim Baksh to the extent of their, thr...
Suraj Mal and anr. Vs. Mt. Chhote
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All411; 94Ind.Cas.1003
1. The plaintiff, Mt. Chhote, is the daughter of one Jhandu, who died in 1905, leaving some estate in respect of which the name of Mt Lali was entered in the revenue papers on his death. Mt. Lali died in 1910. The allegation of the plaintiff was that she was a minor on the date of her death and that the defendants, taking advantage of her minority, got their names recorded in the revenue papers in respect of the estate left by Jhandu, deceased, and standing in the name of Mt. Lali, although they had no right to the same, Mt. Chhotte brought this suit for possession of the said property with mesne profits, claiming to be entitled to the benefit of Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act. She stated that she was about 20 years old on the data of the institution of the suit. The defendant-appellants contested the suit on three grounds. Their first plea was that Jhandu had left a son about a year old, who died a month later, and that the plaintiff was not the heir of the last male holder. T...
Sheoraj Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All340
Walsh, J.1. In this appeal the first question which we have to decide is the admissibility of the evidence of two witnesses who are absent. It is necessary to dispose of this question first because their evidence has formed part of the material on which the case has been decided and if we agree with the appellant that it ought not to have been considered at all, we ought not to include their evidence as part of the relevant subject-matter for the appeal. The learned Judge in the Court below has treated the evidence as though given under Section 512 and his mind has been diverted from the real difficulty by reason of the fact that the defence objected under Section 512 that it was not shown that the accused was absconding at the time when the statement of the witnesses were taken and the Judge decided against that objection on the ground that although the declaration that the accused was absconding was subsequent, the fact that ha absconded was prior to the taking of the evidence. We do...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »