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.
Kub Lal Vs. Gulzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All297
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for damages on the allegations that the defendant had wrongfully cultivated the plaintiff's share, a joint holding, and that the defendant had further cut certain trees and taken certain fruit from groves belonging to the plaintiff. We will deal first with the question of joint tenancy. The trial Court held that the plaintiff's joint ownership of the tenancy was res judicata, and decreed the plaintiff's claim, allotting him Rs. 531-10-0 as damages. It is admitted on behalf of both parties that there were two previous suits in 1916 and 1920, in which the question of ownership had been decided in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court, however, held that the matter was not res judicata because the plaintiff's title was based on his acquisition by sale and foreclosure of a certain share in an occupancy holding, and that such a title was void under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It further held that a wrong decision of a point of la...
Ram Pratab Singh and ors. Vs. Lal Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All330
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land by demolition of certain constructions made thereon by the defendants-respondents. The plot in dispute is admittedly situate in the patti of which the plaintiffs-appellants are the zemindars, and on a portion of the said plot, the house of the defendants exists. The plaintiffs' case was that the constructions complained of (a stable, a pigeon house and a cattle trough) were recently made by the defendants without the plaintiffs' permission and as such the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession of the site of those constructions by their demolition.2. The defence to the suit was that the constructions in dispute were old and the suit was time-barred, and that the suit was barred by the principle of acquiescence. These pleas taken in defence have been overruled by both the Courts below and I am not concerned with them in the present appeal. The defendants also alleged tha...
Mt. Ahmadi Begam Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All345
1. The plaintiff, Mt. Ahmadi Begam, sued for partition of her share of 8 shops and a yard for the collection of wood. This property belonged to her father and the defendants are the other heirs. She claimed a share specified as 1974 out of 6502. The dispute between the parties related to a gift made by the father in his lifetime to the plaintiff of 1,000 sihams. The gift was objected to on two grounds (1) that the father himself not having been in possession at the time could not have given possession to the daughter and so the gift was invalid for want of possession, and (2) that the gift was an invalid one of musha, i.e., an undivided share of joint property.2. Both the subordinate Courts upheld the contention and held the gift to be inoperative. They further declared plaintiff's title in the property in accordance with the right as an heir ignoring the gift. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has not quoted any ruling in support ...
Badal Singh and ors. Vs. Debi Saran Dhar Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All395
1. The plaintiff in this suit is a mortgagee who obtained a decree on a mortgage executed by one Debi Saran in the year 1913 and in execution of that decree put the mortgaged property to sale and obtained full satisfaction on 22nd April 1919. At this point the mortgagor's grandson came forward and obtained a decree to the effect that the whole proceedings, including the mortgage and the sale, were void against him. As a result of that decree the auction-purchaser of the property demanded the return of his money and obtained the return of his money on the 22nd February 1923. This application has been made under Rule 6, Order 34 of the Civil Procedure Code for a personal decree against the mortgagor. The application was allowed by the Court of first instance but disallowed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge on two grounds. In the first place he holds that Rule 6, Order 34 has no application to this case and secondly that even if such an application could be made it is barred by the three...
Bhairo Lohar and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All551; 101Ind.Cas.591
Lindsay, J.1. I have listened to long arguments in this case, and although J am not disposed to agree with certain findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court I am nevertheless bound by them. The suit was a suit by two minors asking for a declaration of their occupancy right in a certain holding. There can be no doubt whatever that this occupancy tenancy was mortgaged by the plaintiffs' father Baldeo in October 1893, in favour of two of the zemindars of the village, Safdar Husain and Fakir Husain. It is clear also that on the 12th of April 1918, a suit for redemption was decreed in favour of the sons of Baldeo on payment of a sum of Rs. 47. In that suit the defendants were the representatives of Safdar and Fakir, the original mortgagees.2. Prior to this redemption suit it appears that Baldeo had mortgaged this occupancy holding again with a man named Durga Charan for a period of 12 years and had left a sum of Rs. 99-l5-0 with Durga Charan to redeem the earlier mortgage. We...
Hub Lal Vs. Gilzari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.601
1.This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for damages on the allegations that the defendant had wrongfully cultivated the plaintiff's share, a joint holding, and that the defendant had further cut certain trees and taken certain fruit from groves belonging to the plaintiff. We will deal first with the question of joint tenancy. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs' joint ownership of the tenancy was res judicata, and decreed the plaintiff's claim, allotting him Rs. 531-10-0 as damages. It is admitted on behalf of both parties that there were two previous suits in 1916 and 1920, in which the question of ownership had been decided in favour of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, however, held that the matter was not res judicata, because the plaintiff's title was based on his acquisition by sale and foreclosure of a certain share in an occupancy holding, and that such a title was void under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It further held that a wrong decision of a point of la...
Nasir Khan and ors. Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All357
1. The plaintiff mortgagee sued for sale and the defence of certain defendants was that the mortgage could not have operation against Yusufpur property, 864 sihams out of 1728 of which had been purchased by them. The mortgage was executed on 13th April 1920, but prior to that the mortgagor had entered into an agreement with the defendants-appellants to sell the Yusufpur property. This agreement was registered on 8th April 1920. Subsequently the defendants-appellants brought a suit for specific performance on 19th April 1920, and obtained a decree in accordance with which a sale deed was executed in their favour.2. The trial Court exempted the property of the defendants-appellants on the ground that the plaintiff had notice of the previous contract for sale. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge did not consider the question of notice but held that a prospective vendor, even after an agreement to sell the property could transfer it. This opinion on a point of law is obviously wrong, h...
Kampta Prasad Misir Vs. Bhulai Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All365
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of certain zemindari property by cancellation of a deed of gift dated the 15th of July 1920, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that before, at the time and ever since the date of the execution of the deed of gift the plaintiff was of unsound mind, and the defendant taking advantage of the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind fraudulently got the deed executed in his favour. The suit was brought by the plaintiff through his wife Mt. Pato as next friend of the plaintiff.2. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff was not of unsound mind and that the deed of gift was executed by the plaintiff while he was in full possession of his faculties and that the claim was barred by Section 11 of the Civil P.C. The trial Court did not believe the allegation as to the plaintiff's unsoundness of mind and further held that ...
Abdul Aziz Khan and ors. Vs. Muhammad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All415
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the whole property should be liable to pay the mortgage-debt, or only that portion of the property which belongs to the present appellants. The property belonged to one Musammat Aziz-un-Nissa who died in the year 1901, leaving as her heirs her two daughters Ghafur-un-Nissa and Halim-un-Nissa, and her brother Murads' property was at that time subject to a mortgage in favour of one Behari Lal. Murad made no claim for possession of the property and the whole property passed into the hands of the two daughters Ghafur-un-Nissa and Halim-un-Nisa, who obtained mutation on the 27th February 1902. Subsequently the mortgagee sought to recover his money and the two daughters executed a usufructuary mortgage in his favour of the whole property in 1910. Again on the 1st February 1911, these two ladies executed a further simple mortgage in satisfaction of the usufructuary mortgage and recovered possession. It was after this, namely, in 1913, tha...
Raghunath Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Bharose and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All421
1. The plaintiffs sued for the refund of purchase money under the following circumstances: They purchased a certain property from a Hindu father and the sale was subsequently cancelled on the opposite side depositing Rs. 900 in Court for payment to the plaintiffs. The sale consideration was Rs. 3,475 and the plaintiffs sued the defendants who are sons of Hanuman, vendor, for the balance of the purchase-money. The trial Court in a well-reasoned judgment held that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but that it was barred by limitation. On appeal these decisions were reversed, but the result was the same and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. This is a second appeal.2. We agree with the trial Court that the suit is not barred by the principles of res judicata. There is a ruling of this Court in support of the view that in the former suit by the sons of the Hindu vendor then deceased the plaintiffs as defendants could not have claimed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »