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.
Mohammad Abbas Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Chotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All28; 97Ind.Cas.594
Mukerji, J.1. This letters Patent appeal arises owing to a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court, with the result that the judgment of the learned Judge was upheld. The question before us has narrowed itself down very much. The two learned Judges heard three appeals in the first instance against the same judgment of the Court below. All the three appeals were dismissed, but there was a difference of opinion as regards Appeal No. 7 of 1.922, which is now before us again in the shape of the Letters Patent appeal.2. The facts, so far as they are involved in the appeal of Abbas Ali (since deceased and now represented by his widow and some), are these: The respondent R. B. Chotey Lal brought Suit No. 219 of 1920 for recovery of a very large sum of money amounting to over a lac of rupees from certain properties and a large number of defendants, numbering 24. The suit was based on the mortgage-deed for Rupees 40,000, dated the 2nd of September 1908. The plaintiff cont...
Balwant Singh and anr. Vs. Sarabjit and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All70
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates to two plots of land measuring 17 biswas which is in the occupation of the defendants. The land forms part of a larger area, the other half of which is in the occupation of the plaintiffs. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that they were the occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute, that the defendants had no concern with the occupancy rights of the said plots, and that they were wrongfully denying the exclusive title of the plaintiffs and setting themselves up as their co-tenants. The defendants asserted that they were partners in the occupancy holding of the plots in question with the plaintiffs, that the plots had been partitioned privately, and that the suit was barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They further pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiffs had no cause of action. The trial Court did not go into the merits of the claim. It dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that ...
Dwarka Singh Vs. Anrup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All103
1. This is a pre-emption appeal arising out of rather peculiar circumstances.2. For the disposal of the suit we must take the plaintiff's allegations as correct, for they have not yet been adjudicated upon. The plaintiff's case was that there was a sale some time in 1917 and he brought a suit for pre-emption. After the sale some members of the family of the vendors brought suits to have the sale-deed set aside. Their suits succeeded and by an agreement on account of the success of the suits the pre-emption suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has since discovered that the plaintiffs in the suits for the cancellation of the sale-deed never recovered possession from the vendees and the vendees are still in possession. The inference that the plaintiff draws is that the two suits were collusive as between the relations of the vendor and the vendees. He now claims pre-emption.3. The Court of first instance heard evidence on the question of custom of preemption and held that no custom of preemp...
Sheikh Usman and ors. Vs. Mohammad Shafi Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All204
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiffs claimed to pre-empt property transferred under a deed which ostensibly was a simple mortgage-deed under the following circumstances:2. A one-anna four-pies share had been originally mortgaged with possession by the transferrer to the plaintiff himself for Rs. 1,100. Subsequently the transferrer executed the document in question transferring two-thirds out of one-anna four-pies share and leaving the entire amount of the first mortgage in the hands of the transferee for payment to the plaintiff. The profits of the property transferred admittedly amounted to Rs. 30. Even calculating consideration at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem (i.e., 50 years' purchase) the value of the property could not exceed Rs. 1,500 which was the ostensible mortgage-money. The document, however, made it clear that the money could be recovered from the property and there was no personal undertaking by the transfer...
Kuar Chandar Shekhar Bux Singh Vs. Musammat Bhagwati Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-03-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.640
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. In order to prove the custom the plaintiff relied on an entry in the wajib-ul-arz of 1832. The defendant rebutted the presumption arising from this entry by showing that on the 25th of March, 1842, the entire village was transferred to a single owner Debi Singh. This fact was admitted by the plaintiff's own witness Jaswant Singh. On Dabi Singh's death his sons succeeded. to the estate and Debi Singh's descendants were in possession of the property at the time of the sale. Having regard to these circumstances the lower Appellate Court has found that it is not proved that a custom of pre-emption exists. The finding is that when Debi Singh became the sole proprietor of the village, in 1842, no custom could exist then and that the history of the village between 1832. and 1872 negatived the conclusion that a custom could grow-up in that interval. Prima facie we must accept this finding of the lower Appellate Court.2. The ...
Bindraban Vs. G.i.P. Ry. Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All394
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for damages against a railway company. A bale consisting of 50 'thans' of markin was consigned to the G.I.P. Railway Company at Bombay for delivery to the plaintiff at Farrukhabad under a Risk Note form B. The bale however was not delivered. In spite of registered notices the defendants failed to deliver the bale or pay its price. The pleas raised on behalf of the railway company were numerous, but all of them were apparently not pressed. Two main defences were that there was no wilful neglect and that in any case the loss was due to a robbery from a running train. The seals of the wagon in which the bale had been placed were found to be intact at Nasik, but were found broken at Manmad. The contents of the wagon however were checked not at Manmad but at some subsequent station, when it was discovered that one bale was missing.2. The Court of first instance found that between Nasik and Manmad there are two high banks where the speed ...
Firm Manik Chand Tota Ram Vs. E.i. Railway and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All724
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of the Small Cause Court Judge of Jhansi, dismissing the applicant's suit for damages by reason of the loss of certain bags of sugar which were entrusted to the defendant Railway Companies or one of them for the purpose of carriage from Calcutta to Jhansi.2. The lower Court found that the train on which the consignment of sugar had been placed was stopped at a signal for 115 minutes and that some dacoits took advantage of this long stoppage to raid the train and carry off the goods or a portion of them. It is believed that these robbers threatened the guard with death if he interfered. It is admitted that the goods were consigned under Risk note B which relieved the Railway 'Company from any loss other than a loss occasioned by wilful neglect and which defined 'wilful,' neglect as excluding robbery on a running train. The judgment mentions that the goods were consigned both under Risk note 'B' and Risk Note A. It has be...
Tasadduq HusaIn Vs. Chaturbhuj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All63; 97Ind.Cas.483
Walsh, J.1. These are two connected second appeals from a decision of the District Judge, and they have given me a good deal of trouble on account of the number and variety of points of law which are said to arise. One appeal is valued at Rs. 8, and the other at Rs. 12. There are almost as many points as there are rupees. I will try and deal with all of them in turn. I hope if I forget any of them, I shall be forgiven by the parties because they are so many, and I cannot remember them all. I may at first say that I think the decision is right, and a decision which, as the Judge himself says he was bound to come to. A suit was brought in the Court of the Assistant Collector by a zamindar against a mortgagee for ejectment. On the facts stated, the suit was improperly brought in a Court which the plaintiff knew perfectly well had no jurisdiction to eject the defendant. The land had been the occupancy tenancy of one Mangla with others. Mangla died and the property was inherited by Mt. Lach...
Gundi Lal Vs. Basdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All690
1. This is one of those cases in which a mortgage by Hindu father has been challenged by his sons. One of the items in the mortgage is a previous mortgage on the same security, and the lower Courts following the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh AIR 1917 PC 61 have held that prior mortgage is not an antecedent debt, and is not binding on the estate. In appeal we have been asked to hold that the judgment on which the lower Courts relied has been overruled by their Lordships in the case of Brij Narain Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai AIR 1924 PC 60. It has also been brought to our notice that two Judges of this Court in Gouri Shankar Singh v. Sheo Nandan Misra AIR 1924 All 543 have apparently come to the conclusion that every prior mortgage must be treated as an antecedent debt. On page 372 the following passage appears:Returning to the question of antecedent debt it seems to us plain from this recent decision of their Lordships that the definition ...
Mt. Mohammadi Bibi Vs. Kashi Upadhya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All725a
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, brought by the plaintiff appellant as puisne mortgagee for redemption of a prior mortgage. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in holding that the suit must fail by reason of the plaintiff not having proved the due execution of his own puisne mortgage deed.2. The plaintiff alleged due execution of this deed on the 31st of May 1920. The defendant prior mortgagee, in his written statement denied that a mortgage deed executed by all the persons stated by the plaintiff had been validly executed. The mortgagors-defendants, admitted due execution. The first question to decide is whether it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove due execution of this deed of the 31st of May 1920 in view of the fact that the defendant mortgagors admitted due execution. It is argued by the appellant that the plaintiff was only concerned with getting his money, and that no issue arose when once the due exec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »