Allahabad Court January 1927 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.
Khuda Bax and ors. Vs. Raghunandan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All381
Lindsay, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by one Raghunandan Khattri to recover a sum of Rs. 100 from the defendants as damages on account of the price of wood of a pipul tree which, it was alleged, defendants had wrongly cut and appropriated from a Plot No. 493, said to be situated in the plaintiff's zamindari. There ware three sets of defendants in the case. In the plaint it was said that the first and third Set of defendants had colluded and cut the pipul tree without any right and had sold the: timber to the second set of defendants.2. The main defence to the suit was that Plot No. 493 on which this pipul tree was situated was wakf property, being a piece of land dedicated as a graveyard and which was used by the bhatiyara residents of the town of Atrauli for burying their dead. 3. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Munsif was of opinion that there was evidence that the property had been dedicated for the purposes of a cemet...
Gulab Rai and anr. Vs. Tulsi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All437; 101Ind.Cas.322
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 900 under the following circumstances: 2. The plaintiff and the defendants and one Munna Lal were co-sharers in a village. Munna Lal was the lambardar and on the latter's death Tulsi Ram plaintiff-respondent, sued Ram Narain, the son of Munna Lal, for the profits of 1320 to 1323 Faslis in the Revenue Court. Ram Narain contested the suit on the allegation that he had paid the profits of the share of Tulsi Ram to Jagannath and Gulab Rai defendants. The written statement containing this allegation was filed by Ram Narain on the 13th of September 1919. The defence of Ram Narain found favour with the Court, and Tulsi Ram's suit was dismissed on the 26th of August 1918, and that decision was affirmed on appear on the 11th of March 1919. Thereupon the suit giving rise to the present appeal was brought on the 23rd of August 1921, by Tulsi Ram, plaintiff-respondent, fo...
Ata HusaIn and ors. Vs. Latif Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All476; 101Ind.Cas.469
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. On the 20th of January 1927, in ignorance of the fact that the parties were represented by counsel in this Court, I, after going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, accepted the reference made by him and actually signed my order of that date, After I had signed that order, but before it was sealed, it was brought to my notice by the office, that the parties were represented by counsel, and accordingly I directed the case to be put on the day's list with a view to enable the counsel for the parties to argue the matter. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am still of opinion that on the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly correct. 2. The village in dispute, viz., village Bania Para Mahraj is waqf property and its income is devoted to charitable and religious purposes. Ata Husain is mutwalli of eight annas and Abbas Ali, Mubarak Ali and Bibi Amiran are mutwallis ...
Mt. Dhiraji and ors. Vs. Mt. Chandra Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All398
Iqbal Ahmed, J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment filed in the revenue Court under Section 58(a) of the Tenancy Act by three plaintiffs, Nath Prasad, Lalta Prasad and the latter's wife Mt. Chandra Kali. The defence to the suit was that the defendants were in possession of the plots in dispute not as a tenant but as a proprietor. In view of the defendants' plea that they were not tenants of the plaintiffs but had a proprietary right in the land, the Revenue Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 199(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act required the defendants to institute a suit in the civil Court for the determination of the question of title raised by them.2. The defendants, did, in pursuance of the order of the revenue Court, file a suit in the civil Court within the time allowed by the revenue Court, but they arrayed as defendants to the suit only two out of the three plaintiffs, viz., Nath Prasad and Lalta Prasad and omitted to implead Mt. Chandra...
The Upper India Rice Mills Ltd. Vs. the Jaunpur Sugar Factory Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All161; 101Ind.Cas.224
Walsh, Ag. C.J. and Bannerji, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Judge in companies (winding up). The claim is one made by the Jaunpur Sugar Factory, Ltd. (in liquidation) against the Upper India Rice Mills, Ltd. (in liquidation) for the sum of Rs. 8,514-10, and has been admitted by the learned Judge. The view that he took was that the money which belonged to the former company was taken from their coffers by their managing agents, Behari and Co., and applied for the benefit of the latter company, whose managing agents were also the same firm, under such circumstances as not to amount to a loan, and that it was not recoverable except upon demand, and that no demand having been made until after the liquidation, namely, the 24th of January 1925, there was no debt until that date, and that therefore limitation could not begin to run before that date. It was thought desirable that in the special circumstances the learned Judge himself should be a member of the Bench hearing the ...
Baij Nath and anr. Vs. Ram Bharos
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All165
1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench to obtain a decision on the question, viz., which of the two cases Jurawan Pasi v. Mahabir Dhar Dube [1918] 40 All. 198 and D.S. Apte v. Tirmal Hanmant Savnur A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 503 was correctly decided.2. The facts of the case are only partially given in the judgment of the lower Court. This being a first appeal we looked into all the facts involved in the case and we find that having regard to certain facts, to be presently mentioned, the question referred does not arise for decision. 3. The appellants' late father, Ram Lal, and certain other persons obtained a decree for sale which was made final on the 28th September 1912. The date given in the execution application of 28th April 1925 is presumably the date of the preliminary decree. After an infructuous application, another was made on the 22nd December 1915. In the course of this execution the parties came to terms. It was agreed that out of the sum of Rs. 5,338 then found due, the ju...
Huseni Begam Vs. Syed Mohammad Mehdi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All340
1. This is an appeal by a Mohammadan lady, Mt. Masiti Begam, against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, who dismissed her suit for possession of the village of Hakimpur Qazi, which she sought to obtain from her nephew Saiyid Mohammad Mehdi. The case turns entirely on the question whether this property has been validly bequeathed to Mohammad Mehdi by the will of his maternal grandmother, Mt. Murtazai Begam. It is admitted on both sides that if the will were set aside, the plaintiff, who is the only surviving daughter of Mt. Murtazai Begam, would be entitled to the whole of her property by inheritance. As it is, she has obtained the rest of the property left by her mother; but this property has been denied to her, as it was bequeathed by will to her sister, Mt. Husnaini Begam, and is now in possession of the latter's son.2. In the lower Court the plaintiff actually denied the existence of the will; but this matter is not now in issue. Undoubtedly, the will was executed by Mt...
Bhagwan Sahai Vs. Nanak Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All336
1. Both these appeals arise out of a suit for pre-emption which was brought by one Moti Ram now represented by Nanak Chand and others. It appears that on the 17th of October 1922 the Defendants Nos. 2 to 6 in the suit sold certain zamindari property to one Ram Lal for the sum of Rs. 4,830. On the 7th or 8th of October 1923, Moti Ram filed his suit for pre-emption. On the 13th of October 1923, a rival suit for pre-emption was filed by Risaldar Major Bhagwan Sahai who is the appellant before us. After this, that is to say, on the 20th of October 1923, we find that Ram Lal the original purchaser sold the property to the Risaldar for the sum for which he himself had purchased.2. Moti Ram having become aware of this transfer to the Risaldar impleaded Risaldar Bhagwan Sahai as a defendant in his suit. He also amended his plaint and pleaded that the transfer to the Risaldar was collusive and that in any case he had a better right to pre-empt the property than Bhagwan Sahai. It is further to b...
Raj Narayan Pandey Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All394; 101Ind.Cas.886
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Raj Narain, who has been directed by a Magistrate of the First Class of Benares to furnish security for good behaviour. That order has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. Although the High Court is not a Court of appeal in cases under Section 110 of the Criminal P.C. and the responsibility of administering that section does not rest upon it, it is nevertheless a section which ought to be administered with scrupulous care both by the Court of first instance and the appellate Court. It is only when something appears unsatisfactory and unusual that this Court will look into the record to examine if the order has been properly passed. The case appears to have been put up before a Magistrate by the Police and evidence which has been repeatedly held to be inadmissible by this Court, has been used as substantive evidence against the applicant. Moreover, it has been brought to my notice that a finding of both the Judge...
Musammat Huseni Begam Alias Masiti Begam Vs. Syed Mohammad Mehdi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1927
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.673
1. This is an appeal by a Muhammadan lady, Musammat Masiti Begam, against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, who dismissed her suit for possession of the village of Hakimpur Qazi, which she sought to obtain from her nephew Syed Mohammad Mehdi. The case turns entirely on the question whether this property has been validly bequeathed to Mohammad Mehdi by the Will of his maternal grandmother, Musammat Murtazai Begam. It is admitted on both sides that if the Will were set aside, the plaintiff, who is the only surviving daughter of Musammat Murtazai Begam, would be entitled to the whole of her property by inheritance. As it is, she has obtained the rest of the property left by her mother; but this property has been denied to her, as it was bequeathed by Will to her sister, Musammat Husnaini Begam and is now in possession of the latter's son.2. In the lower Court the plaintiff actually denied the existence of the Will; but this matter is not now in issue. Undoubtedly, the Will w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »