Allahabad Court January 1927 Judgments
Aulad Ali and ors. Vs. Syed Ali Athar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All170
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. We are of opinion that this is a clear case, and we agree with the judgment of our brother Mr. Justice Lindsay.2. I propose to give my reasons as shortly as possible. The question arises out of a contract, which may be compendiously stated as one for exchange by the parties thereto of certain properties belonging respectively to each of them. It relates to a certain mauza, in respect of which Muhammad Razi transferred the whole of his interest, except one pie, and the parties entered into a mutual agreement as a fundamental condition of sale, that if either of them should wish to transfer the whole, or part, of his share in that mauza, that is to say as regards the transferee Nasir Uddin, what he was taking under the document, and as regards the transferrer Muhammad Razi, the single pie share which he was reserving to himself they might do so by transferring it from one to the other but if either of them desired, or in fact attempted to transfer to a third person, the...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board of Ferozabad Vs. Bhola Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All432; 101Ind.Cas.446
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The suit, giving rise to the present appeal, was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant-appellant (the Municipal Board of Ferozar bad ) from demolishing a latrine in the plaintiffs' house. The plaintiffs' latrine is of the kind known as sandas. The Municipal Board in exercise of the powers vested in it by Section 267(1)(a) of the Municipalities Act ( Local Act 2 of 1916 ) issued a notice on the 20th of June 1923 directing the plaintiffs to close the latrine. It was stated in the notice that the latrine had been newly constructed and its continuance was calculated to be injurious to public health.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the latrine in question was old and was kept clean, and did not cause any inconvenience to the members of the public, and that the notice was issued at the instigation of the mohalla people and of some of the officials of the Municipal Board, who were inimically disposed, towards the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Mukund Lal Vs. Mohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All518; 101Ind.Cas.744
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents, in a representative capacity, on behalf of the Hindu community, under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil P.C. The dispute between the parties centres round a courtyard and a well which are situate to the east of a temple in which the plaintiffs as members of the Hindu community, are entitled to worship, and to the north of the house of defendant-appellant. Both parties claimed exclusive ownership of the sahan and the well in dispute.2. The trial Court held that the sahan and the well are the common properties of the temple, Brij Basi Lal plaintiff, and the defendant-appellant The lower appellate Court has held that the sahan and the well exclusively belong to the temple, and, on that finding, has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour, ordering the defendants to close a drain made by them, and not to use a latrine which is to the north of the outer gate of the temple, and for the remova...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Siddiq and anr. Vs. Shahab-ud-dIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All364
1. The parents and heirs of a deceased, wife sued the deceased's husband and the husband's father for recovery of their share of the dower-debt. The suit was decreed against the son alone who does not appear to own any property. The plaintiffs have come here in second appeal to obtain a decree against the father. Both the subordinate Courts have held it as a finding of fact that the father was not a surety for the payment of the debt at the time of the marriage. The husband was a minor at the date of the marriage, which was arranged by the father.2. The question which arises is whether the father by his consent to the marriage becomes a surety for the payment of the dower-debt fixed at the time. It would appear from a statement in Mr. Tyabiji's Principles of Muhammadan Law, Second Edition, page 179, Section 104(1) that his becoming such a surety would be presumed. What he says is that where the marriage has been contracted on behalf of a minor of the male sex by his guardian for marria...
Tag this Judgment!Fakire Vs. Tajuddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All490; 101Ind.Cas.821
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The dispute in this case centers round a parti plot of land in a village in which the plaintiff is admittedly one of the co-sharers. Defendant No. 2 and the wife of Defendant No. 3 transferred the plot in dispute along with their house to Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff's case was that he was in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute and being the zemindar was entitled to a decree for possession of the same as against Defendant No. 1 who had no title to retrain possession of that plot.2. The defence of Defendant No. 1 was that the plot in dispute was the sahan of the house transferred to him. This defence has been overruled by both the Courts below and I am no longer concerned with it in second appeal.3. The defendant also contested the plaintiff's right to the relief prayed for by him on the ground that he 'the defendant) himself was a zemindar in the village though his share is recorded for certain reasons in the name of his son. On the question whether or not t...
Tag this Judgment!Golab Devi Vs. Mohammad Abdul Ghafoor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All492; 101Ind.Cas.580
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtor and arises under the following circumstances:2. Mt. Salem-un-nissa, wife of Abdul Ghafoor, brought a suit for profits against the defendant in the revenue Court. During the pendency of the suit, she transferred her right to the profits claimed and her share with respect to which the suit for profits was brought by her to Abdul Ghafoor on the 7th November 1921, by means of a registered instrument. Notwithstanding this transfer Abdul Ghafoor did not, as a transferee of the profits from Mt. Salem-un-nissa get his name substituted as a plaintiff in the suit for profits in place of Mt. Salemun-nissa. On the 9th of November 1921, Mt. Salem-un-nissa's suit was decreed. Thereafter, Mt. Salem-un-nissa died. Abdul Ghafoor filed an application for execution of the decree as an assignee of the decree. The learned Assistant Collector held that, though the assignor's interest in the land to which the decree for profits relat...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal and anr. Vs. Tika and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All719; 101Ind.Cas.750
Pullan, J.1. The lower Court threw out this appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The suit relates to the tahsil of Sikandrabad which is situated in the Bulandshahr District, but was up to the year 1921 in the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Meerut. This suit was decreed on the 28th November 1923, and on the 10th January 1924 an appeal was preferred in the Court of the District Judge of Meerut. The Munsarim of that Court accepted the appeal and it was made over to an Additional Judge for trial. Consequently it was not until 10th March that it was discovered that the appeal should have been filed in the Court of the District Judge of Bulandshahr. The appeal was then returned to the plaintiff, who took it without delay to the proper Court. We have to consider whether in a case of this kind the appellant should be punished for what must have been a mistake of his counsel. As far as he was concerned, it was clearly a bona fide mistake and he has throughout prosecuted...
Tag this Judgment!Yasrab Bano Vs. Zahur HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All320
1. In our opinion this appeal must be allowed, the decree of the lower appellate Court set aside, and the decree of the Court of first instance restored. The suit was a suit for pre-emption of an area of 18 biswas comprised on a Plot No. 94. It is clear on all hands that at one time, at any rate this Plot No. 94 formed a portion of a patti called 'Patti Haider Husain' in which the plaintiff-pre-emptor is a co-sharer and in which the vendee is not.2. It is stated that in consequence of some litigation which took place in the year 1918 this area of 18 biswas came to one Nawab Husain, and it is further stated that by reason of a compromise which was arrived at between the persons who were owners of this patti Nawab Husain was given a proprietary interest in these 18 biswas of land. It was also stated by counsel in the trial Court that revenue had been assessed on these 18 biswas but it was not known whether the revenue had been paid or not.3. The lower appellate Court seems to have though...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Aisha Begam Vs. Daulat Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All471
Lindsay, J.1. The suit in this case was a suit for ejectment. The plaintiff claimed, as the Zemindar of a village called Pali Muqimpur, to eject the second defendant who claimed to be rightly in possession of the site of a house situated in the village. The plot on which the house stands is described as No. 84. The case of the plaintiff was that this defendant, Daulat Singh, had no right whatever to occupy this plot against her will. Admittedly this plot was once in the occupation of an agricultural tenant named Chhidda Khatik. The story of the plaintiff was that Chhidda abandoned the village without paying his rent. She stated that for this reason the site of the house had escheated to her as zemindar. It was alleged that on the 28th of January 1921, Chhidda had sold the materials of his house under a registered sale-deed for Rs. 100 to the first defendant Nand Ram Khatik who was his relation. After this Nand Ram is said to have sold this house to the second defendant Daulat Singh. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Mewa Ram Vs. Lal Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All410
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that he and Defendant No. 1 are the sons of Kundan, and as such entitled in equal shares to the holding in dispute that belonged to Kundan, and in the alternative for recovery of joint possession of the same along with Defendant No. 2. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the holding in dispute belonged to Kundan and that he, as one of the sons of Kundan, was entitled to a half share in the holding in dispute, but Defendant No. 1 had got the holding in dispute entered in the revenue papers in the name of son-in-law, Defendant No. 2, without the plaintiff's consent. 3. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was not the son of Kundan and that the holding in dispute was acquired by Defendant No. 1 and not by Kundan and as such the plaintiff in no case was entitled to the reliefs prayed for by him. It was also contended by the defendants that the suit was time-barred.4. The trial Court held that t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »