Allahabad Court April 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.
Gaure Shankar Misir Vs. Kamla Prasad Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All645
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiffs claim to be the reversionary heirs of one Gaya Prasad Misir, who died leaving two widows Mt. Jasoda Kunwar and Mt. Bindhachal Kunwar. He had a brother Mangla Prasad, who had died before him, leaving a widow, Mt. Sheerani Kuar. Gaya Prasad was indebted to a parson named Kamta Prasad, who obtained a decree after his death against his widows on the 5th September 1908. In execution of that decree Kamta Prasad got 150 maunds kham of grain in the possession of the widows attached on the 17th July 1909. It is not suggested that the grain attached was the produce of the time of Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad had, in fact, died over a year earlier. The widows paid up the decretal money by borrowing Rs. 400 from Gauri Shankar and executing a mortgage-bond for that amount in his favour and the question for consideration is whether that mortgage-bond was made for valid necessity and was binding on the reversioners.2. The trial Court found that it was binding on the reve...
Tulshi Singh and anr. Vs. Sheosaran Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All678
Daniels, J.1. In these three connected appeals, No. 344, 345 and 346, there are 279 respondents. It is therefore undesirable even in the interest of the appellants that notice should issue unless there is some chance of the appeals succeeding. In my opinion the decision of the Court below is right and the appeals cannot succeed.2. The appellants are two of the defendants. The land is cultivated tal land in the Ballia district. There have been disputes about it for a long time. According to the Munsif's judgment there was a former case under Section 145, Criminal P.C., followed by a civil suit in which the plaintiffs got a decree against the zemindars of Mairi Tar. More recently there was a case under Section 145 against the tenants of Mairi Tar. The latter got an order affirming their possession. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit. The defendants claimed to be tenants of the plaintiffs and were referred to the Revenue Court under Section 202, Tenancy Act. The revenue Courts decided agai...
Gauri Shankar Misir Vs. Kamla Prasad Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.869
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The plaintiffs claim to be the reversionary heirs of one Gaya Prasad Misir, who died leaving two widows Musammat Jasoda Kunwar and Musammat Bindhachal Kunwar. He had a brother Mangla Prasad, who had died before him, leaving a widow, Musammat Sheorani Kuar.2. Gaya Prasad was indebted to a person named Kamta Prasad, who obtained a decree after his death against his widows on the 5th September 1908. In execution of that, decree Kamta Prasad got 150 maunds kham of grain in the possession of the widows attached on the 17th July 1909. It is not suggested that the grain attached was the produce of the time of Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad bad, in fact, died over a year earlier. The widows paid up the decretal money by borrowing Rs. 400 from Gauri Shankar and executing a mortgage bond for that amount in his favour and the question for consideration is whether that mortgage-bond was made for valid necessity and was binding on the reversioners.3. The Trial Court found that it was b...
Gopal and ors. Vs. the Collector of Aligarh and Chunna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1926
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.134
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to a piece of muafi land occupied by a grove situated in Qasba Koil, close to the town of Aligarh. The land was originally granted by the predecessors of the plaintiff to Sirh Mal, the predecessor of the contesting defendant, for planting a grove, and the question for considering is whether the descendants of Sirh Mal had a right to sell the grove to Chunn and Ram Lal, and are liable to ejectment in consequence.2. The allegation of the plaintiff was that there was a custom appertaining to the muafis granted by the zemindars by (sic) of which the muafi holders or their (sic) ants had no right to transfer the muafi by sale. The plaintiff questioned the right Of the son and grandsons of Sirh Mai to transfer the grove, and he sued for the cancellation of the sale and for possession of the grove by the ejectment of the muafidars and their transferees.3. The plaintiff relied in support of the custom wajib-ul-arz prepared in 1872 in which ...
Tikam Singh and ors. Vs. Hargobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All574; 95Ind.Cas.854
Lindsay, J.1. We are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge in this case is correct. The question before him was whether Har Gobind, who was impleaded as a defendant in a suit for sale on a mortgage, was entitled to put forward the defence that he had purchased the land free of all incumbrances including that of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiff's mortgage bears date the 7th February 1910. Before that the owner of this land, Mt. Lado, had taken a takavi loan from Government on the 10th March 1901 under the provisions of the Land Improvement Loans Act (XIX of 1883).3. Having failed to repay the loan to the Government, the property was sold by the Government and was purchased by Har Gobind. Section 7 of the Land Improvements Loans Act provides for the recovery of takavi loans. The question which was before the learned Judge, and which has been raised again before us, is whether, when the Government took steps to realize the loan they were acting under Clause (c) or Clause (d) o...
Mahadeo Kasaudhan Vs. Gaya DIn Kasaudhan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.184
1. These appeals have arisen out of two separate suits but as they relate to the same property both appeals have been heard together. The property in dispute consists of a house which for the sake of convenience we will describe as house No. 2 situate in Muhalla Muftipur in the City of Gorakhpur.2. The parties to the litigation are members of a family descended from one Ghisiawan Kasaudhan. The plaintiff in the suit out of which Appeal No. 1020 of 1923 has arisen was one Gaya Din, the father-in-law of Basant Lal, one of the members of this family. He seeks to attach a one-third share said to be the property of Ranbya. In the other suit which has given rise to Second Appeal No. 1662 of 1924, the sons of Basant Lal sue for the partition of a one-third share.3. It is not disputed now, and indeed cannot be disputed, that in view of what was decided in a previous litigation, the descendants of Ghisiawan Kasaudhan constituted a joint Hindu family up till the end of the year 1913 when one of ...
Baij Nath Vs. Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.965
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. In 1881 Diwan Singh had made a possessory mortgage in favour of the respondent Banwari Lal and his father. Subsequently in the execution of a simple money-decree against Diwan Singh, his equity of redemption was put up for sale at auction and was purchased by Munshi Lal in 1889. It is admitted that this sale was confirmed by Munshi Lal. But there is ho proof that any sale-certificate was ever granted to Munshi Lal. The possessory mortgagees have remained in possession all along. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that Munshi Lal, the auction-purchaser, had transferred his rights-in-interest to Diwan Singh, the original judgment-debtor, who is the ancestor of the present judgment debtor. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court has held that the learned Munsif was right in disbelieving the story of the plaintiff that Munshi Lal transferred his property to Diwan Singh. The f...
Ajudhia Prasad Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All609; 95Ind.Cas.698
Dalal, J.1. One Mathura Prasad one of two reversioners to the property of a Hindu on the death of his widow sued for the concellation of a sale deed executed by the widow and for possession of the entire property.2. On the death of the widow the next reversioners were the plaintiff Mathura Prasad and his brother Ram Sahai When the sale deed was executed Ram Sahai consented to the sale and such is the finding of the two subordinate Courts. They have, however, held that Mathura Prasad can alone recover the entire property and was not restricted to the recovery of the half-share of his property. The defendant vendees, therefore, have come here in second appeal. In my opinion the appeal must succeed. In his plaint Mathura Prasad gives no reason why he was entitled to the other half of the property, on Ram Sahai losing his right to recover it. He sued on behalf of himself and of Ram Sahai whom he made a party defendant to the suit. In para. 5 of the plaint it is stated that he and Ram Sahai...
Chaudhari Raghubans NaraIn Singh Vs. Manphal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.382
1. The plaintiffs are occupancy tenants of the defendant zemindar and combined together to bring a declaratory suit on the basis of a common right which they claimed, that the zemindar was not entitled to cut kikar trees standing on their occupancy land. They did not claim ownership of the trees. What they claimed was that so long as their occupation of the land lasted and they were not ejected from the land, the zemindar was not entitled to come on to their occupancy land and get the trees cut. The declaration desired was in these terms.2. 'A decree may be passed by the Court and it may be declared that the defendant zemindar had no right to sell any trees standing on the boundary walls appertaining to or situate in the plaintiffs' occupancy holding or to get it cut so long as the relation of zemindar and tenant subsisted between them, without the permission and consent of the occupancy tenants.' A perpetual injunction was desired in the same terms.3. The defence was that it was the r...
In Re: J.H. Chandler and Co. Ltd. Vs. H.i. Phillips
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All550
Mukerji, J.1. The Official Liquidator claims a sum of Rs. 1,000 from Mr. H.I. Phillips, Agent of the Allahabad Bank Ltd., at Patna, on the ground that he is a contributory inasmuch as he agreed to purchase 100 shares of Rs. 10 each by subscribing to the Memorandum of Association before it was filed with the Registrar. Mr. Phillips denies his liability and has filed an affidavit to state the facts. The affidavit is really the basis on which the case is to be decided because there is no counter-affidavit. The facts appear from the affidavit to be these.2. Mr. Chandler, who was anxious to float the Company, approached Mr. Phillips, and at his request Mr. Phillips signed the Memorandum to be attached to the Articles of Association, to be forwarded to the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, for registration. Mr. Phillips admits that he put himself down for 100 shares. It also appears from the affidavit that in 1921, apparently after the registration of the Company, Mr. Phillips received a let...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »