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.
Musammat Daulat Bibi and ors. Vs. B. Gajadhar Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.555
1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought for the redemption of four mortgages. The substantial defence to the suit was that the mortgagor was not entitled to redeem without at the same time paying the amount of five other bonds. Whether these bonds amounted to mortgages or not is a question which is in dispute between the parties. The trial Court held that none of the five bonds pleaded by the mortgagees was proved. The lower Appellate Court held that only one of them, the bond of 28th. October, 1898, was proved, but it rejected the mortgagees' claim to receive the amount of this bond on the ground that a suit on it would have been barred by limitation. The present appeal, relates to the bond of 28th October, 1898, above referred to and to another bond dated 29th October, 1898, but it is only the former with, which we are really concerned. The lower Appellate Court has rejected the bond of 29th October as not proved, and though it was suggested that this finding was based ...
Nekram Singh Vs. Sriniwas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All586
Daniels, J.1. In this case the plaintiff claimed as next reversioner certain properties alienated by Mt. Gango, the widow of one Sripal. The deceased Sripal is found to have belonged to the sect of Jains known as Saraogi Agarwalas and the plea taken by the defendant was that Mt. Gango had an absolute estate in the properties in dispute. Both the Courts below have held that the properties in dispute in this appeal were the joint family property of Sripal and his brother and that the plaintiff cannot rely on the Privy Council decision in Sheo Singh Rai v. Dakho (1876) 1 All 688 which only held that a Jain widow of this particular sect has an absolute estate in her husband's self-acquired property. The only point urged in this appeal is that the Court below should have gone further and held that she had an absolute estate in all non-ancestral or separate property whether self-acquired or not.2. In support of this decision the appellant relies on two rulings. The first is that of Shimbhu N...
(Kunwar) Kalyan Vs. MehIn Lal Kamdar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All729
1. This appeal has been referred to us by Mr. Justice Sulaiman. In our opinion it ought to be allowed, and the suit dismissed, on the ground that the first Court was wrong to restore it. It was dismissed on the merits on January 31. The plaintiff had received every indulgence. On the date fixed for final hearing he produced no evidence. He was in contempt, having failed to pay the costs which he had been ordered to pay as a condition of obtaining an adjournment on a former occasion. The inference is that he was either unable or unwilling to pay them. The Munsif thereupon proceeded to dispose of the case by a final judgment. Unfortunately when the application was made to restore the case, he had been succeeded by another Munsif. We are satisfied that the original Munsif would have taken a different view, and he would have been right. Both the lower appellate Courts and Mr. Justice Sulaiman were of opinion that the disposal had been on the merits. In the view we take, it is unnecessary t...
Rajendra Kisor Saran Singh Vs. Dr. Ibrahim HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.544
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The shares in eleven villages were sold under a sale-deed dated the 9th of February, 1921, by Bhagwati Saran Singh who has not been impleaded. These eleven items of properties were sold for Rs. 12,500, the prices of these are not separately specified but the Government revenue and cesses against them are mentioned in the sale-deed about which there is no dispute. Both parties admit that there is no evidence on the record to indicate the total profits of all the eleven items of properties. The Court below has decreed the claim for pre-emption with regard to two villages. The plaintiff in appeal claims one more village, Faridpur, by pre-emption. He also challenges the accuracy of the calculation of the sale price with regard to one village which has been decreed to him.2. So far as the question of pre-emption is concerned we have only to deal with the village of Faridpur. There was an entry of the right of pre-emption ...
Kunwar Kalyan Vs. MehIn Lal Kamdar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.564
1. This appeal has been referred to us by Mr. Justice Sulaiman. In our opinion it ought to be allowed, and the suit dismissed, on the ground that the first Court was wrong to restore it. It was dismissed on the merits on January, the 31st. The plaintiff had received every indulgence. On the dale fixed for final hearing he produced no evidence. He was in contempt having failed to pay the costs, which he had been ordered to pay as a condition of obtaining an adjournment on a former occasion. The inference is that he was either unable or unwilling to pay them. The Munsif thereupon proceeded to dispose of the case by a final judgment. Unfortunately when the application was made to restore the case, he had been succeeded by another Munsif. We are satisfied that the original Munsif would have taken a different view, and he would have been right. Both the lower Appellate Court arid Mr. Justice Sulaiman were of opinion that the disposal had been on the merits. In the view we take, it is unnece...
Mt. Qudrat-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Abdul Rashid and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All661
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On the 23rd November 1923, the sale sought to be pre-empted took place. The case is accordingly governed by the New Pre-emption Act of 1922, which came into force on the 17th February, 1923. The suit for pre-emption was filed on the 22nd November 1924. While that suit was pending in the first Court, the defendant obtained a deed of gift on the 8th April 1925 of another share in the property in the same mahal, and pleaded that the plaintiff had actually lost his right of preference over her. The Court of first instance held that under Section 19 of the Agra Pre-emption Act the plaintiff had lost his right, and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the appellate Court has taken a contrary view. It has come to the conclusion that the interpretation of Sections 19 and 20 of the Agra Pre-emption Act is that the defendant cannot resist the plaintiff's claim unless she had acquired an indefeasible right in ...
SalimuddIn Vs. SaiduddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All674
1. In this appeal the only matter argued is whether the learned District Judge was entitled to rely on a registration certificate in which it was stated that when the parties appeared before him (the Sub-Registrar), the mother and the uncle of the present plaintiff who now says that he was a minor at the time appeared before the Sub-Registrar with the plaintiff and produced a medical certificate that he was 18 years of age. The District Judge refers to this matter in the following terms;2. The question of his age was raised at the time of the registration, and it appears that he was accompanied by his mother and his uncle and that he obtained a medical certificate showing that he was 18. Thus there is strong prima facie evidence that he was 18. It is urged before us that the learned Judge was not entitled to take into consideration this registration endorsement and the existence of the medical certificate unless somebody was produced to prove the facts stated in that endorsement and un...
Amer Singh Vs. Ram Saroop and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.664
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption which has been dismissed on the technical ground that one of the mortgagees who is missing and has not been heard of for some time is not proved to be dead. The mortgage was made by the plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest, Brijbhukhan, in favour of two persons, Pitambar Singh and Eaghubar Singh. The suit for redemption was brought against Gyan Singh son of Raghubar Singh who is dead, and against Ram Sarup the. son of Pitambar Singh on the allegation that Pitambar Singh had been missing for the past fifteen or sixteen years and had not been heard of by his relations and might be presumed to be dead. The defendants denied that Pitambar Singh bad been missing for fifteen or sixteen years, but it was admitted that he had gone to France more than two years before and had not since been heard of. The Munsif disbelieved the defence and held that there was a presumption of Pitambar Singh's death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act...
B. Bharat Indo and ors. Vs. Bachchan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All692
Daniels, J.1. This appeal and the cross-objections arise out of a suit in which the plaintiffs who are zamindars sued for the demolition of a chabutra and the removal of pegs and nauds used for feeding and tethering cattle on the ground that these had been newly erected and that they caused obstruction to a road belonging to the plaintiffs. The defence was that the constructions complained of are not new but old, having been in existence for forty years, and that the plaintiffs have no right to claim their removal. The finding of both the Courts below is that the chabutra is at least twenty years old. The lower appellate Court has come to no definite finding about the other constructions, but the Munsif found these also to be twenty years old, and the evidence on the point is the same which lower appellate Court has accepted in respect of the chabutra2. It is also found except as to one naud that there has been no obstruction. On these findings the learned subordinate Judge has held th...
Kamta Prasad and anr. Vs. Ram Ratan Puri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All548
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order allowing the withdrawal of a suit with permission to file a fresh suit under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1. The order was passed by the appellate Court after arguments had been heard, though it appears that the parties were heard on the application to withdraw before final orders were passed. The facts on which the withdrawal has been allowed are these:In the trial Court the plaintiff had applied to have a survey of the disputed spot made by some competent person. This application had been accepted and the Munsif had asked the District Engineer to depute an officer to make a survey. The District Engineer nominated an officer and intimated that his fee would be Rs. 50. It appears that on the date fixed for hearing, the Munsif gave the plaintiff the option of postponing the examination of his witnesses or dispensing with the survey. The plaintiff, unwilling no doubt, decided to go on wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »