Allahabad Court July 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.
Rameshar Das and ors. Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All113; 97Ind.Cas.544
King, J.1. The parties are co-sharers of a certain village, and a perfect partition was made by the revenue Court in 1322 F in accordance with which plot No. 158 fell in the plaintiff's share. This plot had a number of trees upon it and the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the 44 mahua trees now standing upon that plot belonged to him only and that the defendants had no trees upon that plot. 2. The Courts below o have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by Section 233 k of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.3. The plaintiff argues in second appeal that the suit was not barred by the provisions of Section 233(k). The question whether or not the suit was barred by the provisions of the section relied upon by the Courts below depends upon the nature of the suit. According to the partition Plot No. 158 had upon it 65 mahua trees out of which 54 trees were allotted to the plaintiffs and the remaining 11 mauha trees were allotted to the defendants. It is common ground that a...
Shahzad Singh Vs. NaraIn Kurmi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All190; 101Ind.Cas.257
Walsh, J.1. In this case it has been found that, although the mortgage was invalid, the defendant deliberately concealed the truth from the plaintiff and pretended to be the owner, whereas he knew perfectly well that what he had was only an interest in an occupancy tenancy. The result of the authorities is that if the plaintiff was a partner to that bargain and deliberately entered into it with full knowledge of the circumstances, he has no remedy. The suit is based upon an entirely different hypothesis. The claim made by the plaintiff is that he, the mortgagee, was deceived into lending his money upon a security which the defendant knew was bad. If that is not a fraud, fraud does not exist.2. The allegation is that the mortgage-money had been obtained from the plaintiff by practising fraud, and the suit is brought to get it back. The lower appellate Court has found the facts in accordance with this plea. We are of opinion that the law is well settled, and that there is no answer to pl...
Jagannath Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Mahesh Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All245
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Raja of Barhar for the ejectment of the defendants-appellants Jagannath Prasad Singh and Baijnath Prasad Singh, as thekadars from the village of Naugawan in Pargana Barhar. The suit has been decreed. The dispute in appeal, so far, at any rate, as the appeal has been pressed, relates only to one-half of the village in respect of which the defendants claim to be under-proprietors. They rely entirely on a rubkar of Mr,. Roberts, Settlement Officer, in the year 1852 which is claimed as establishing their under-proprietary right. The learned District Judge holds that this document is not conclusive, and on a review of all the evidence, including the fact that the defendants have never been recorded as under-proprietors in the revenue Courts, comes to the conclusion that their under-proprietary right is not established. The suit was originally tried by an Assistant Collector of the First Class who decided in favour of the appellan...
Deonandan Singh and ors. Vs. Musafir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All54; 97Ind.Cas.591
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the four sons of a Hindu, Gobind Singh, to recover property sold by their father and uncle by a sale-deed executed on the 9th December 1902, in favour of the defendants first party on the ground that the sale was without legal necessity.2. The suit was defended on the ground that it was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the sale was for legal necessity.3. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit both on the ground of limitation and on the ground of legal necessity.4. The first point raised before me in second appeal is that the suit has wrongly been held to have been time-barred under Article 126 of the Limitation Act since it is a case of alienation not by the father of the plaintiffs only but by the father and uncle combined. It is true that Article 126 provides for a suit by a Hindu to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property but I think that this applies also to a suit when the alienation was made by ...
Mt. Kaniz Fatima Vs. NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All66
Boys, J.1. These two appeals arise out of certain insolvency proceedings which commenced on the 28th of January 1922, against two brothers, Ehsan Husain and Abdul Majid. It is common ground between the appellants, the wives of the insolvents, and the principal respondent (the Receiver) in the two appeals that about a year before the insolvency proceedings commenced, the two brothers had executed sale-deeds of the property now in question in favour of their respective wives. We have not got the insolvency proceedings before us, but it appears that there must have been some application on the part of the Receiver that these properties should be treated as properties of the insolvent. Thereupon the learned District Judge took proceedings under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act 5 of 1920. Notices were served on the ladies and they failed to appear. Thereupon the learned District Judge, on the 12th of May 1922, passed an order by which he found the transfers voidable against the R...
Ganga Ram Vs. Chunni Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All765
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal involves the decision of a question as to who is the owner of a particular land in suit. It appears that the respondent here, Chunni Lal, was sued by the appellant Ganga Ram in the revenue Court for ejectment. Ganga Ram's case was that he was the proprietor of the land and Chunni Lal held a grove, that Chunni Lal had out down the grove shortly before the institution of the suit and had thereby laid the land open to resumption by the zemindar. Chunni Lal's case was that he was the proprietor of the land. He was referred to the civil Court to obtain a declaration.2. Chunni Lal's suit was dismissed by the Court of first instance, but has been decreed by the Court of first appeal. The learned Judge found that Chunni Lal's predecessors, Chatri and Ghanshiam, had purchased the land in suit from the proprietors, Hira Singh and Ajit Singh. He explained why, in spite of the purchase of the land, the purchasers were recorded as grove-holders in the papers and holding th...
Nageshwar Tewari Vs. Rup NaraIn Shukul and Tirjagi NaraIn Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.547
King, J.1. Tirjagi Narain Tevrarii defendant No. 2, instituted a suit for possession of property against Rup Narain Shukul, the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed and Rup Narain Shukul got a decree for costs. In execution of his decree he applied for the attachment of the property now in suit and the attachment of that property was ordered on the 22nd of September, 1916. While that attachment was still subsisting Tirjagi Narain Tewari, the owner of the property, hypothecated it on the 3rd of June, 1917, to Nageshar Tewari his uncle defendant No. 1.2. The plaintiff's application for execution was struck of, for reasons with which we are not concerned, on the 23rd of February, 1918, but the plaintiff made a fresh application for attachment on the 10th September, 1918, and the property was re-attached and was sold on the 20th of February, 1920, and bought by the decree-holder himself.3. The plaintiff-decree-holder now sues for a declaration that the mortgage executed by the judgment-debtor...
Sukhbir Singh and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All766; 97Ind.Cas.566
1. These two appeals arise out of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) notice was given by the Collector to the appellants that Government intended to take possession of their land for the purpose of a market at Muzaffar Nagar. Both the appellants replied to this notice stating that they were not willing to give the land for the construction of the market and that no public market was required. They further stated that they had submitted a memorial to the Provincial Government asking for proceedings to be stayed pending the decision of their memorial. Various other reasons were given in this application against the acquisition of the land for the purpose of the market. It was also stated that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 1,000 par bigha kham, The Collector held proceedings and made an award under Section 12 of the Act. Under sub Section (2) of Section 12 he gave notice of his award to the ...
Maharaj Singh and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Suryapal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1929All29; 113Ind.Cas.758
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a Suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery from the defendant of the Government revenue of which the plaintiff is the assignee. The Court of first instance, an Honorary Assistant Collector, dismissed it as barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The lower appellate Court decreed the claim with interest disagreeing with the first Court ar regards the plea of bar created by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The defendant has preferred this second appeal which raises two questions viz., (1) whether the, suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. as held by the Court of first instance and (2) whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to interest on arrears of revenue.2. It appears that the Government revenue of the village has been assigned to a class of persons who collect it from the landholders liable to pay the same. Manohar Lal is an assignee to the extent of eight shares in patti No. 6. Similarly Venkateshwar...
Enayat HusaIn Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All752
Banerji, J.1. Enayet Husain has been convicted under Section 377, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced do 5 years' rigorous imprisonment. The trial was before an Assistant Sessions Judge with a jury.2. The only question is whether there was misdirection in this case. The heads of charge, as noted down by the learned Judge, do not give a summary of the evidence, nor does it show at all whether the learned Judge did or did not do anything more than say to the jury that there were material discrepancies; and whether those discrepancies were brought to the notice of the jury, or whether the Judge simply told the jury that there were discrepancies, does not appear from the record. Further the Judge in charging the jury has more than once used the expression:If you are morally convinced, your verdict should be that of guilty.3. Then the Judge records that he agrees with the unanimous verdict of the jury as regards Enayat. He goes on to say:There are some doubts, no doubt; but then the doubts are...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »