Allahabad Court March 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.
Mt. Sahodra and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All473; 94Ind.Cas.482
1. The sole question for determination in this case is whether an application for the transfer of execution of a decree to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Lucknow, made by a decree-holder on the 2nd of January 1924, was barred by limitation. The decree in question was passed on the 16th December 1919 and was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow, where some property was attached, but on an application made by the decree-holder, and Mt. Ramjanki the principal judgment-debtor, representing the estate of the original debtor, the execution was stayed but the attachment was maintained, and the judgment-debtor, was granted a year's time to pay the decretal money. The present application is within time from the expiry of the said year and if the period for which the execution was stayed be excluded under Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, also from the date on which the above compromise was filed.2. The Courts below held that the application for ...
Babu Lal Vs. Janak Dulari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All681; 94Ind.Cas.454
Walsh, J.1. We are of opinion that this appeal fails. The point is a simple one. One Maheshi Lal left a widow surviving him, who executed two mortgages under circumstances which are not known, and which have never been investigated upon the question whether the loan made by the widow was either for legal necessity, or for some other purpose which by Hindu Law binds the estate.2. The mortgagee shortly before the death of the widow sued her and obtained a decree for sale. On the death of the widow or some little time afterwards, he applied for execution, and sought to join or bring on the record two daughters of the deceased widow and of their father, the deceased Maheshi Lal, on the ground that they were the legal representatives of the deceased widow. They objected. Their objection took the obvious form that they were not the legal representatives of their deceased mother because there was nothing to represent. They were the legal representatives, or reversioners of their deceased fath...
Sheo Darshan Singh Vs. Beni Chaudhri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All424; 87Ind.Cas.585
1. This case comes before us by reason of a difference of opinion between the Judges who decided Second Appeal No. 1696 of 1922.2. The question is one of the interpretation of a decree passed in a suit for redemption of a mortgage, and the facts may shortly be stated as follows:3. Babu Sheo Darshan Singh brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage and obtained on the 22nd of April 1919 a preliminary decree. The Court found that the plaintiff had to pay for redemption a sum of Rs. 1,747-8-6 for principal and interest and Rs. 69-2-0 for costs, making a total of Rupees 1816 10.6.4. The item for costs just referred to included only two-thirds of the costs incurred by the defendants mortgagees. This sum was deposited by the plaintiff' mortgagor in the Court and on the 26th of 1919 a final decree under Order 34, Rule 8 was passed. On the 15th of July 1919 the plaintiff was put in possession of the mortgaged property.5. Mean while the mortgagees appealed against the preliminary decree, and on...
Shiva Prasad Vs. Shambhu Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All450; 94Ind.Cas.246
Mears, C.J.1. This is the appeal of Rai Shiva Prasad against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby in effect he dismissed the plaintiff's claim for ejectment against a tenant and, incidentally, and what is of more practical importance, declared certain acts of the Court of Wards to be ultra vires.2. On the 17th of September 1909 Shiva Prasad and Shambhu Prasad, brothers, of full age, on their own application, had their estate put under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. On that date the Act of 1899 was in existence. By 1919 presumably the estates had been cleared of its embarrassment, and the time was arriving when the Court of Wards wished to be free of this superintendence and on the 18th of December 1919 there was an agreement executed by the Court of Wards and by a lady named Gopi Kunwar, who was the mother of the plaintiff and defendant. The Court of Wards were of opinion that there should be a partition of the estate before it passed put of their c...
Abdul Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ismail
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All638; 95Ind.Cas.970
1. This judgment cannot stand. We desire to pay every respect to the view taken by the lower appellate Court, and to the respect which he himself desires to pay to the opinions expressed in judgments by learned Judges of the High Court sitting in appeal. But the opinion of our learned brother, which the Judge of the lower appellate Court has followed in this case, was admittedly a mere dictum on a question of fact, which the learned Judge had no power to decide, because he was sitting in second appeal, and upon evidence which was not the same as the evidence in this suit, upon which the first Court had to determine and the lower appellate Court had to decide in appeal. If on the same set of facts an appellate Court with jurisdiction to review findings of fact, expresses a definite approval, or definite disapproval, of a particular finding, and the same set of facts comes before an inferior Court on a subsequent occasion in a later stage of the same litigation, undoubtedly the view expr...
Mohsham Ali Khan Vs. Mulu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All37; 94Ind.Cas.347
1. The only question for consideration in this appeal is, whether there is a decree capable of execution as against Mulu. It appears that there was an attempt at house-breaking committed at the house of Mulu in 1919. Two persons were named in the first report made by Mulu at the police station, one of whom was Mohsham Ali Khan, the present appellant. Bhawani had accompanied Mulu when he had gone to the police station to make that report. Both the persons named in the report were originally convicted, but on appeal Mohsham Ali Khan was acquitted.2. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was then brought by Mohsham Ali Khan for damages' for malicious prosecution. It was decreed by the trial Court both against Mulu and Bhawani. Mulu did not appeal. Bhawani filed an appeal making Mohsham Ali Khan alone a party to it. Mulu subsequently appeared before the appellate Court and asked that his name should be added as a co-appellant, alleging that he had paid Rs. 16 to Bhawani of a joint a...
Radha Kant Shukul Vs. Butai Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.922
1. This is an appeal of a decree-holder. The facts are as follows: One Jagesh Miser executed a simple mortgage in favour of one Har Har Nath.' This Har Har Nath was not only the father of the present appellant, Radha Kant, but he was manager of a joint Hindu family which consisted of himself and of an uncle and a cousion of his own. He had also another son, Radha Govind, besides the present appellant, Radha Kant. Radha Govind is the elder of the two sons. It is common ground in this appeal that the execution of the decree obtained on the mortgage on 9th April, 1921 is time barred unless Radha Kant appellant can take advantage of the fact that he was a minor up to March, 1923. Both the lower Courts dismissed the application as time barred. The lower Appellate Court has held that the appellant cannot take advantage of Section 7 of the Limitation Act, because his elder brother Radha Govind who was admitted by him to be' manager of the family to which he and that brother belonged could hav...
Jhabba Singh Vs. Chhajjoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All445; 94Ind.Cas.169
1. These appeals arise out of three suits brought by lessor for the recovery of arrears of theka money due by a lessee for the years 1328, 1330 and 1331 Faslis. The theka was granted on the 5th of May 1918 by a registered lease, which secured to the lessor a rent of Rs. 1,125 per year. Three years after the grant of the lease, two groves standing in she village, comprised in the lease, which apparently yielded some profit to the lessee, were cut by the lessor with the consent of the lessee; and the arrangement between them was that the lessor Shall give credit on account of the groves cut to the extent of Rs. 246 per year towards the rent secured by the lease.2. The question for consideration here is whether such an arrangement can be proved in variation of the terms of the original lease; or in other words whether the oral evidence to prove such an arrangement is excluded by Section 92(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is a well-established rule that a subsequent oral, agreement...
Partap NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All453; 94Ind.Cas.944
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to some shares in certain pattis of the village Kartarpur, and the complaint of the plaintiffs is that in the course of a partition proceeding, instituted by Lachhman Das for the partition of his share of the said village followed by certain intermediate applications made by Ram Kumar Singh and Mahip Singh for the partition of what; they described as their share therein, an order was passed by the partition officer in his capacity as Assistant Collector on the report of the patwari of the village, directing the correction of certain entries in the khewat in a manner prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs. The facts of the case are some what complicated, and we had some difficulty in getting the right facts in consequence of the manner in which the case was presented to us. We give the facts as stated to us or as far as they could be ascertained from the papers laid before us for consideration.2. The plaintiffs and the defendant J...
Ram Bahadur Singh Vs. Muneshar Chamar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All725; 97Ind.Cas.241
Banerji, J.1. Muneshar, the respondent in this case, instituted a claim for determination of the nature of his tenancy under Section 95 of Act II of 1901 in respect of certain plots in Mouza Barwa in the Court of the Assistance Collector First Class, Gorakhpur, against the appellant, Ram Bahadur Singh, the zemindar of the land. The defendant contested the claim, and the Assistant Collector dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on 1st of August 1922. Muneshar filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Gorakhpur describing it as an appeal under Section 177, Clause (7) of the Tenancy Act. The learned Judge who heard the appeal decreed it on the 4th of July 1923. Ram Bahadur Singh has come here in second appeal and has raised various pleas one of them being that no appeal lay to the District Judge from the decision of the Assistant Collector.2. A suit under Section 95 falls in group (c) of the Fourth Schedule of the Tenancy Act. An appeal from the decree of an Assistant Collector...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »