Allahabad Court March 1926 Judgments
Gokul Kalwar Vs. Chandar Sekhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All665
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal is directed against a preliminary decree passed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur in a suit for redemption. The plaint is dated the 15th of September, 1916 and the suit was suit No. 7 of 1917. It seems that the suit was dismissed originally in the Court of first instance. There was an appeal to this Court and the case was sent back for disposal on the merits, and finally the Subordinate Judge gave judgment on the 5th of October 1922 allowing redemption. In framing their suit for redemption the plaintiffs-mortgagors asked for mesne profits for two periods: (1) from the date of a certain deposit which they had made in Court under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act till the date of the suit; and(2) from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to mesne profits for the first period and he based his decision on the ground that the deposit which...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwat Das and ors. Vs. Chhedi Koeri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All398; 95Ind.Cas.559
Lindsay, J.1. These cases have been referred to this Full Bench and the matter for consideration is whether in the particular circumstances of this case this Court has power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reference has been occasioned by conflicting decisions in this Court regarding the question of the competence of this Court to interfere in a matter of this kind by way of revision. The facts may be briefly stated as follows:2. Two suits were filed by two zamindars for the recovery of what purported to be arrears of rent and these suits were suits under serial No. 2, Group A, of the 4th schedule attached to the Tenancy Act. In each case the valuation of the suit was below Rs. 100 and by reason of that fact the decrees in the suits were appealable to the Collector under the provisions of Section 176. The suits were decreed in the Court of first instance and thereupon there was an appeal to the Collector who affirmed the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Babuna Koer and anr. Vs. Bechchu Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All531
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of possession of a certain holding. The plaintiffs are the widow and mother of one Ram Lakhan Tewari the original tenant of the holding. Their case is that Ram Lakhan Tewari died 25 years ago and that they inherited his right of occupation and have been in possession since then until recently when the defendants who are distant cousins of Ram Lakhan Tewari have dispossessed them. The first Court decreed the suit. On appeal the District Judge of Ghazipur allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that a civil Court had no jurisdiction. He held that the fact of the plaintiffs having been out of possession for two years gave rise to a presumption that their dispossession and possession by the defendants must be with the connivance of the zamindar. He therefore held in effect the suit was one by a tenant to recover possession from the zamindar, and as such was maintainable ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Autar Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Kashi Chaudhuri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All544; 95Ind.Cas.48
1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiffs-respondents against the defendants-appellants for their ejectment from two different holdings. The defendants-appellants were originally non-occupancy tenants of the holdings and the plaintiffs-respondents were their landlords. Subsequently the defendants acquired a share in the mahal in which both the holdings are situated. The plaintiffs are suing to eject them. The defence is that under Section 194 all co-sharers must join in a suit for ejectment, at any rate, unless there is a lambardar who represents all the co-sharers. It is admitted that there is no lambardar in this mahal.2. The first Court held that the defence was valid. The Additional District Judge of Gorakphur has dissented from this finding and allowed ejectment. The grounds for his decision are briefly as follows: The defendants having obtained possession as tenants cannot now claim that they occupied the holdings other wise than as tenants. Wit...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sughar Rai and anr. Vs. Dharam Raj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All555; 95Ind.Cas.959
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a cross-objection in S.A. No. 296 of 1925. The appeal has been dismissed by us on the merits.2. It appears that two rival suits for preemption were instituted and the rival pre-emptors were impleaded in each other's suit. The appellants' suit was dismissed on certain grounds by the first Court, but the respondents' suit was decreed. It is noteworthy that the first Court framed two different and independent decrees disposing of the two suits separately. In either decree there was no reference to the disposal of the other suit. The appellants preferred an appeal from the decree dismissing their suit, but filed no appeal from the decree decreeing the respondents' suit. They however in their memorandum of appeal before the District Judge stated that under Section 18 of the new Pre-emption Act (No. II of 1922), they were entitled to prefer a single appeal against both the decrees and added that if in the opinion of the Court it was necessary to file two appeals, the a...
Tag this Judgment!Balaghat HusaIn Vs. Abid Bakhsh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All225a; 95Ind.Cas.1
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. One Balaghat Husain sued on a hypothecation bond, dated the 6th of February 1920, the mortgagor, Defendant No. 1 Mt. Bilqisunnissa, and two mortgages, alleged to be subsequent mortgagees, Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 did not defend the suit. The only contesting defendants were Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff declared that he had lost the bond, and tendered in evidence a certified copy. The first Court found everything in favour of the plaintiff, including the loss of the bond. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the allegations of the defendants that the bond was fictitious, that it had, as a matter of fact, been discharged before the date of transfer to them and that an endorsement had been made on the bond and that it had been returned to the mortgagor and again returned to the plaintiff were untrue; but further found that it was not established that the bond had been lost and on this ground it dismissed the...
Tag this Judgment!Tula Ram and anr. Vs. Bhola Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.176
1. The plaintiffs are the sons of Nathua and seek to challenge the validity of a mortgage effected by Musammat Rukmin, the widow of Dhundi, and Musammat Lachhmi the widow of Radha Kishan, in favour of Bhola Singh on the 13th of June, 1914. They also ask for a declaration that the property mortgaged was not liable to sale in execution of a decree for interest due on that mortgage which had. been obtained by Bhola Singh against the said ladies in 1920.2. The main question for consideration was whether Nathua was living jointly with Dhundi and Radha Kishan, their first cousins, at the time of the death of the last two persona. It was not disputed that the property mortgaged was the ancestral property of the family to which Nathua, Dhundi and. Radha Kishan belonged. The trial Court found that the family was joint at the time of the death of Dhundi and Radha Kishan, and that the names of Musammat Rukmin and Musammat Lachhmi were only entered by way of consolation, The question of legal nece...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Barhma Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.361
Sulaiman, J.1. The accused was charged with an offence under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, and an enquiry in the learned Magistrate's Court resulted in a commitment to the Sessions Court. The learned Magistrate under Section 341, Cr.P.C., reported to this Court that the accused was not capable of making his defence in Court, but that he was not insane. I directed that the sessions trial should proceed and an attempt should be made to explain the proceedings to the accused, and even if it appeared that he did not understand the proceedings the trial should proceed and if it resulted in a conviction, a further report should be made to the High Court. I also suggested that if in the course of the trial the learned Sessions Judge had any ground for suspecting that the accused was of unsound mind, he should make an enquiry into the matter under Chap. XXXIV of the Cr.P.C.2. The trial has been concluded and the Jury have returned a unanimous verdict of 'guilty.' They have further found that...
Tag this Judgment!(Sahu) Nand Kishore Vs. Shadi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All457
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor from an order refusing to set aside a sale, held in execution of a decree, and the questions for consideration are, whether the sale officer had any jurisdiction to proceed with the sale after an order for stay had been passed by this Court in an appeal pending from the decree, then under execution, and whether there had been any material irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale and had any material injury resulted therefrom.2. In execution of a certain decree, from which an appeal is pending in this Court, the villages of Miranpur and Shekhupur Chuhar were directed to be sold; and the sale officer had fixed the 20th June 1923 for their sale by auction at Bijnor. On the 18th June 1923 an order for stay was passed by this Court; and a copy of it was sent by post to the Subordinate Judge of Bijnor, sitting at Moradabad. The Subordinate Judge at his office is stated to have received that order on the 20th June 1923 at 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!(Shah Muhammad) Habibul Rahman Vs. Syed Abdul Hai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All521
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. His father used to get an allowance, from the Government Treasury of Rs. 370 and odd. He mortgaged his allowance with the Respondent No. 1, Abdul Hai, and the latter obtained a decree on foot of the mortgage and brought the allowance to sale. The sale was, however, not completed on account of the institution of the present suit. The son said in the plaint that he had an interest in the allowance and that the allowance was granted in the interest of the family and was inalienable, being a political pension. Ha asked for a declaration to that effect. As to how the allowance came to be made, he gave a history of it in the plaint. He said that there was originally a muafi grant of the landed property by the Moghul Emperor in favour of an ancestor of his. Later on, the grant of land was resumed and a cash substitution was made for it. It was this cash allowance which was the subject matter of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »