Allahabad Court May 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.
Moti Chand and ors. Vs. Kunwur Kalikanand Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All663; 97Ind.Cas.245
King, J.1. This second appeal arises, out of a suit for a declaration that the house in suit belongs to the plaintiff Kunwar Kalikanand Singh and that one-third of it is not liable to sold in execution of a decree obtained by the defendants on the basis of a mortgage executed in their favour by Kunwar Nityanand Singh. The latter was a brother of the plaintiff named Kunwar Kalikanand Singh, and there is a third brother Kunwar Kamlanand Singh. The plaintiff's case is that the house in dispute belonged to Mt. Badan Dai, his father's sister, who died some time before 1903, and that she transferred the house to him before her death by an oral gift. The defendants denied the alleged gift, and their case is that the three brothers, namely, the plaintiff, Nityanand Singh and Kamalanand Singh, inherited the house as heirs of Mt. Badan Dei, and that Nityanand Singh had a title to transfer the one-third share in the house.2. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have found that the allege...
Binda Vs. Mangala and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All673
Daniels, J.1. This is a suit by one Binda to set aside a decree passed against himself and his brother Girwar, on the ground that he was not properly represented in that suit. The suit was filed by the elder brother Girwar on his own behalf and as next friend of the present plaintiff Binda, who was alleged to be a minor. It now turns out that Binda attained majority one month before the suit was filed. It appears that Binda and his brother have a common interest, and it is further found by the Court below that Binda came to Court with Girwar and assisted to look after the suit. Under these circumstances, the Courts below, following the ruling in Ganga Ram v. Mihin Lal (1906) 28 All 416, have held that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the decree set aside.2. The case relied on was a case in which a defendant was impleaded as a minor under the guardianship of his mother. He and his mother jointly defended the suit, and at no period did he raise the objection that he was not a minor w...
Thakur Das Manrakkhan Lal Vs. E.i. Railway Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All686
King, J.1. The plaintiff consigned 126 bags of sugar from a station on the East Indian Railway line to Banda, a station on the G.I.P. Railway. Delivery was made to the plaintiff at Banda of only 120 bags. Out of those 120 bags three bags were empty, six had been cut and their contents partly missing, and the remaining six bags were not delivered at all. The plaintiff, therefore, sued the Bast Indian Railway and the G.I.P. Railway for compensation on account of the six bags, which had not been delivered and on account of the shortage of sugar in nine of the bags delivered.2. One of the pleas taken for the defence was that the suit was bad for want of notice under Section 77 of the Railways Act. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff failed to prove service of notice upon the Railways, and dismissed his claim with costs. The only argument which needs special consideration in second appeal is that so far as the six bags are concerned, which were not delivered, service of noti...
Baijnath and anr. Vs. Sri Bhagwan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All691
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs arising out of a suit in which they claim a half-share in certain property by partition. Their right to a half-share in this property was judicially affirmed as against the defendants or their predecessors by a decree passed on the 25th of June 1904, and they obtained formal possession from the Court on the 17th January 1908. The sole point argued in the Court below and in this Court was one of limitation. The present suit was filed on the 10th January, 1920. The question is whether limitation should run from the date of confirmation of the sale under Article 138 of the Limitation Act, or from the date of delivery of formal possession under Article 142 or Article 144. The suit is within 12 years from the latter date but beyond 12 years from the former. The trial Court held that delivery of formal possession by the Court formed a fresh starting point for limitation, and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed this decree. The finding o...
Mahadeo Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All704
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Mahadeo Singh, who has been convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class of Benares under Section 426, Indian P.C.2. In Benares, adjoining the railway lines, there is a mosque called Lal Bhairo Mosque, and over the chabutra of the mosque there is an image of a Hindu god, which is surrounded by a wall. On a particular day every year, a ceremony called the marriage of Sri Lal Bhairo Ji is performed there. A day before the celebration of the marriage of Sri Lal Bhairo Ji, viz., on the 1st September 1925, the petitioner and another man widened the doorway in the south wall of the compound round the image of the idol by demolishing part of the wall on both sides of the doorway. Thereupon a complaint was made by the Muhammadans, which resulted in the prosecution of Mahadeo Singh, the petitioner, under Section 426, Indian P.C. The Court of first instance has very clearly, upon materials which were laid before it, come to the conclusion t...
Firm Thakur Dass Manrakkhan Lal Vs. E.i. Railway Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.604
King, J.1. The plaintiff consigned. 126 bags of sugar from a station on the East Indian Railway line to Banda, a station on the G.I.P. Railway. Delivery was made to the plaintiff at Banda of only 120 bags. Out of those 120 bags three bags were empty, six had been cut and their contents partly missing, and the remaining six bags were not delivered at all. The plaintiff, therefore, sued the East Indian Railway and the G.I.P. Railway for compensation on account of the six bags, which had not been delivered and on account of the shortage of sugar in nine of the bags delivered.2. One of the pleas taken for the defence, was that the suit was bad for want of notice tinder Section 77 of the Railways Act. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff failed to prove service of notice upon the Railways, and dismissed his claim with costs.3. The only argument which needs special consideration in second appeal is that so far as the six bags are concerned, which were not delivered, service of...
Mt. Ram Kali Vs. Mt. Gopal Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All557
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a half share in certain properties. The parties are own sisters and are the daughters of Mt. Rampiyari and the grand-daughters of Mt. Sahodra. In the plaint it was stated that Mt. Sahodra was the absolute owner of the entire estate and after her death her daughter Rampiyari came in possession of it as a life-tenant by right of inheritance, and that Mt. Rampiyari died on the 12th of December 1917, leaving daughters, the plaintiff and the defendant. These facts were admitted in the written statement. The plaintiff claimed a half share on the ground that she was entitled to the estate equally with the defendant.2. The main pleas raised on behalf of the defendant were a denial of the plaintiff's right and a further plea that the defendant, being unmarried at the time of Mt. Rampiyari's death, had preference as against the plaintiff who was married. The plaintiff's claim has been decreed for a half share. In...
Mahabir Singh Vs. Debi Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All728; 97Ind.Cas.350
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for the following relief:It may be held by the Court that the land mentioned in Sch A is owned and possessed by the plaintiff and that the defendants have no concern therewith, a perpetual injunction may be issued to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's proprietary possession of the land aforesaid, and if by reason of the said interference it be proved that the plaintiff is cut of possession, then, in that case, instead of the said relief, a decree for possession of the said land may be passed in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants; or any other relief, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be deemed just by the Court, may be granted2. The plaintiff and the defendants being co-sharers, during the pendency of a partition proceedings in the revenue Court, several objections were taken by the plaintiff. The objection taken was that the partition Amin had by a mistake included th...
Deoki Rai Vs. Harakh NaraIn Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All760; 97Ind.Cas.129
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for Rs. 49, the price of a nim tree cut away by the defendant. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant-appellant unlawfully colluded with the other defendant and forcibly cut and appropriated the said tree without any right in spite of the remonstrances of the plaintiff's servant. In his defence the contesting defendant admitted the cutting away of the tree, but denied the rest of the allegations. He set up the plea that this tree along with other trees, had been planted by his ancestors and had been possessed by the defendant for a long number of years and that he had proprietary possession over it. The Honorary Munsif, who triad the case, did not dispose of it in quite a satisfactory way. He however decreed the claim. The learned Judge has admitted that the issues framed by the lower Court were not correct but thought that inasmuch as the appellant had no case at all on his own admis...
Bans Bahadur Rai and ors. Vs. Chaitra Kut Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All755; 97Ind.Cas.157
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale executed on the 15th of April 1866. The plaintiffs and certain pro forma defendants are the heirs of the mortgagors, and the contesting Defendants Nos. 1-13, who are the appellants in this Court, are the heirs of the mortgagee. The defendants contended that the mortgage was foreclosed under Regulation XVII of 1806, and that the right of redemption was absolutely extinguished by a decree of the Munsif's Court, dated the 19th of February 1876. Adverse possession for more than 12 years was also pleaded as a defence. We are not concerned with the other pleas raised by the defendants. The trial Court found that the right of redemption had been extinguished and dismissed the suit.2. The lower appellate Court held that it was necessary for the defendants to prove that the foreclosure procedure laid down in Regulation XVII of 1806 had been strictly followed, and that the right of redemption survived fai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »