Allahabad Court June 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. Rahiman Bibi Vs. Fazal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All56
Mears, C.J.1. This is a perfectly simple and straightforward case. We are going to allow the appeal because we are of opinion that the Judge in the lower appellate Court, in considering what were the principles laid down in the case of Jafar Husain v. Ummat-ur-Rahman [1919] 41 All. 278, included in it a principle which the case does not warrant.2. The suit was commenced by Mt. Rahiman Bibi. She was a young woman, who is said to have been a minor but may have been on the eve of her majority, or may an fact have been major at the time of the happening of the event complained of. She sued her husband for a dissolution of marriage, and her case was that having been married on the 21st of June 1922, her husband in September 1922 made an accusation against her that she had committed adultery, at first with a man whom he did not name but ultimately with a named relative, and as a result of that adultery she had become pregnant. He made that accusation at a moment when she had returned to his ...
Darbari Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Murat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All98
Daniels, J.1. This suit has been decided against the appellants on issues of fact. It has been found that the plaintiff's predecessor Katwaru Singh had a proprietary right in the land and that the plaintiff-respondent is his adopted son. The appellant has pressed two legal pleas:1. Res judicata, and2. Limitation. 2. The plea of res judicata is based on a misapprehension. The Munsif originally decided the suit against the plaintiff. An appeal was preferred, and the appellate Court allowed the plaintiff to withdraw both the suit and appeal under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C., by an order of 11th September 1924, a certified copy of which is on the record. The appellant's learned Counsel was under the impression that only the appeal was withdrawn but a reference to the original order shows that this was not so.3. The facts on which the second plea is based are these: This suit was originally instituted in pursuance of an order of the revenue Court passed under Section 199 of the Tenancy Act...
Sahdeo Singh and ors. Vs. Melhu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All120
Mukerji, J.1. This seems to be an unfortunate case. It was filed as a second appeal and a date was fixed for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case came before Sulaiman, J., for admission. The learned Judge recorded the opinion that the appeal could not be admitted, but the memorandum of appeal might be treated as an application in revision. Accordingly, he ordered that notice should go to the opposite party. To-day the applicant (appellant) and the opposite party (the respondent) are both before me; and for the latter Mr. Bajpai takes a preliminary objection that no revision lies. To appreciate the point it will be necessary to go to some extent into the facts of the case. The suit was filed by the applicants before one Sahdeo Singh and others for recovery of rent in a revenue Court. The dispute was referred to arbitration and an award was made. An application was filed, contesting the award, by the plaintiffs. The learned Assistant Collector refused ...
Mubarak HusaIn Vs. Mohammad Ishaq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All721; 97Ind.Cas.268
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal, in my opinion, must succeed. The facts are all admitted and the only question of law involved is whether the plaintiff is barred from obtaining relief on the principal of acquiescence.2. It is common ground that in old khata of khewat bearing No. 4 was included the plot in suit. The Khata No. 4 came to be designated as Khata No. 1 in the settlement which took place in 1306 F. Similarly old Khata No. 5 came to be designated in the Settlement of 1306F. as Khata No. 9. To avoid confusion, I will speak in terms of the new khatas. The plot in suit was a part of the Khata No. 1 in which the plaintiff is a co-sharer, but in which the defendants bad no share. In Khata No. 9, similarly, the defendants were co-sharers but not the plaintiff. In the Settlement of 1306F., by some mistake, the plot in suit, which was admittedly a property of the plaintiff and his co sharers, came to he omitted from Khata No. 1 and came to be recorded as a part of Khata No. 9. There was a p...
Mahadeo Pandey and ors. Vs. Somnath Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All757
Sulaimam, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for redemption. A mortgage by conditional sale dated 47th June 1888, was executed by Ramsaran, the grandfather of Somnath and the great-grandfather of Ranjit. In 1909 after the new Civil P.C. had come into force, the mortgagees brought a suit for foreclosure and impleaded all the members of the family including the present plaintiff Somnath. Ranjit, plaintiff, was not even born then. The plaintiffs proposed to make Gaya, the father of Somnath, his guardian. It is not quite clear how the interest of Gaya was in any way adverse to Somnath, but Gaya apparently declined to act as guardian, with the result that the Court appointed the Nazir of the Court as the guardian of Somnath minor. The other members of the family compromised the claim, but an ex-parte decree was passed against Somnath under the guardianship of the Nazir on the 25th of September 1909. It is not suggested that there was any irregularity up to this stage in...
Girjanandan Vs. Hanumandas
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All1
ORDERSulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 3rd of April 1917, and presented for registration on the 24th of April 1917. The suit was contested mainly by Defendant No. 2 who held a mortgage, dated the 8th of April 1917, and presented for registration on the 11th of April 1917. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff's mortgage deed had been antedated and was in fact subsequent to the defendant's mortgage. This point has been conclusively found against the defendant. He further denied the completion and validity of the document. The Court of first instance in a very summary judgment decreed the claim. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's mortgage-deed was defective for want of proper attestation. He held that it was executed in the presence of only one witness Baldeo at one place, and then it was brought to the Court compound where it was attested by the second witness Kamla. Kamla ...
Mt. Sahodra Vs. Hari Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All106
Pullan, J.1. The parties in this case are landlord and tenant. The original rent of this holding was Rs. 77-8-0 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 80 by a thekadar. This thekadar however, was held by the Courts to have no authority and finally an agreement was entered into between the parties by which the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100 and the defendant was to have occupancy rights. The landlord has now sued the tenant, claiming rent at Rs. 100; but the lower Court has refused to decree the suit for more than Rs. 80 on the ground that the agreement to enhance the rent was not made in accordance with law. The law is correctly stated by the lower appellate Court and it is to the effect that an enhancement stipulating for rent not exceeding Rs. 100, if not made by a registered instrument, may be attested, by a revenue Court. This, agreement was attested by a revenue Court, but relying on a decision of this Court reported as Dat Prasad Singh v. Gopal Ram [1916] 14 A.L.J. 57 the lower Cou...
Balkaran Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Dulari Bai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All231; 97Ind.Cas.292
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. Mt, Dulari, who was the only appellant before the Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur, appears to have rested her appeal upon a preliminary point, that no evidence had been produced to prove thatthe person signing the mortgage-deed (Bikram Singh) had authority to do so from the real executant.2. The position of Mt. Dulari was that she had come into this suit for redemption by reason of her having bought from the auction-purchaser some portion of the mortgagee's rights. The issues which were framed by the learned Munsif, were framed in the main upon her written statement. That written statement contains no allegation whatever of any want of authority in Bikram Singh. It was on this one point alone that her appeal was allowed. We have repeatedly stated in this Court that lower appellate Courts and this Court sitting either in Letters Patent or in second appeal, ought not to entertain points which should have been alleged in the pleadings a...
Mahadeo Pandey and ors. Vs. Sobha Nath Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.277
1. In our opinion this appeal must succeed. It seems to us, apart from, authority, that the law is clear. It is not necessary to set out the facts, which can be gathered very clearly from the referring order of Mr. Justice Sulaiman, and if necessary supplemented by the District Judge's judgment. Rules 2 and 3 of Order XXXIV provide the machinery for enforcing mortgages by means of a foreclosure decree, and everyone agrees that no notice to the mortgagor between the preliminary decree and the final decree is prescribed. The reason for that is obvious. When a decree of a competent Court has already decided that within 6 months the properly which the defendant values will be taken away from him for ever, if he is not sufficiently interested in the subject to. realise that unless he exercise his right of redemption within 6 months he will never have another chance, it is hardly likely that a piece of paper issued to him from the same Court reminding him of what he already knows will make a...
Phalram Vs. Aiyub Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All55
King, J.1. This was a suit to recover money due on a promissory note, dated the 12th July 1919, for Rs. 600, executed by Mt. Wahid-un-nissa as certificated guardian of her two minor sons. The promissory note in suit was executed in lieu of an earlier promissory note for Rs. 350 executed by the said person on the 17th July 1916.2. It was found by both the Courts below that the promissory note in suit was genuine and for consideration and that the minors, namely, Defendants 1 and 2 were benefited by the loan. Both Courts also found that the original loan of 1916 was taken by the mother for the purpose of financing a certain litigation for the benefit of her two minor sons. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's claim but the lower appellate Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the suit as against Defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the guardian was not able to bind the minors estate by means of a promissory note which did not expressly purport to bind the estate. The que...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »