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.
Biswanath Singh Vs. Dasrath Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All754
1. The matter is covered by authority of a Bench of this Court, Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad (1918) 40 All. 425. The judgment-debtor's property, which was non-ancestral, was auctioned by the Collector on a reference by the civil Court, because it was revenue-paying property. Within thirty days of the sale the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal amount with the necessary additions in the Collector's Court in order to get the sale set aside. The Collector had no authority in the matter. The money was deposited in the treasury and the Collector sent an intimation to the civil Court. The money was not deposited in the civil Court till more than a month after the sale. The executing Court held that this was not a sufficient deposit under Rule 89, Order 21, and this finding was upheld in appeal. Both the Courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. They decided that the Court mentioned in Rule 89, Order 21 was a civil Court and not the Court of the Collector or the Sale Officer where sale p...
Abdul Karim and ors. Vs. Gauri Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All788
1. Both these appeals arise out of two pre-emption suits. The defendants-appellants in both appeals are Abdul Karim and others. They were impleaded in both suits for pre-emption on the ground that they were the perpetual lessees of 33 bighas of sir land included in a four-anna share which was sold to the vendees under a deed of sale executed by Raja Madho Lal on the 21st December 1921. The perpetual lease in favour of these appellants were executed by Raja Madho Lal on the 4th October 1921. The lease was granted in consideration of a premium of Rs. 1,000. The document of lease reserved an annual rent of Rs. 100 per annum.2. The pre-emptors came into Court alleging that the two transactions, dated the 4th October 1921, and the 21st December 1921, were in fact part and parcel of one transaction of sale, and they sought pre-emption on that footing. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suits was apparently in some doubt as to whether it could properly be held that the transactions by way of...
Sardar Singh and ors. Vs. Man Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All806
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a house.2. It appears that the plaintiffs brought a suit in the Court of Small Causes for rent of the house in dispute against the defendant-respondent, on the allegation that the house in dispute belonged to the plaintiffs, and that the defendant was in occupation of the same as a lessee on behalf of the plaintiffs. This allegation of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendant in the written statement filed in the Court of Small Causes, and the defendant asserted that he was the owner of the house. Thereupon the plaint filed in the Court of Small Causes was returned to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs then filed the suit that has given rise to the present appeal.3. The plaintiffs' case was that the house in dispute belonged to them and that as the defendant, who was a mere lessee on behalf of the plaintiffs, had denied the plaintiffs' title to the house in dispute in the written statement filed...
Bishwanath Singh Vs. Dasrath Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1927
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.726
1. The matter is covered by authority of a Bench of this Court, Fazal Rab v. Manzur Ahmad 45 Ind. Cas. 773 : 40 A. 425 : 16 A.L.J. 433. The judgment debtor's property, which was non-ancestral, was auctioned by the Collector on a reference by the Civil Court, because it was revenue paying property. Within thirty days of the sale the judgment-debtor deposited the decretal amount with the necessary additions in the Collector's Court in order to get the sale set aside. The Collector had no authority in the matter. The money was deposited in the treasury and the Collector sent an intimation to the Civil Court. The money was not deposited in the Civil Court till more than a month after the sale. The executing Court held that this was not a sufficient deposit under Rule 89 of Order XXI, and this finding was upheld in appeal. Both the Courts exercised jurisdiction vested in them. They decided that the Court mentioned in Rule 89 of Order XXI was a Civil Court and not the Court of the Collector ...
Emperor Vs. Allah Mahr and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All279
Walsh, Ag. C.J.1. This is a reference to this Court; by the District Magistrate of Bulandshahr, the object of which apparently is to complain against, and to invoke the reversionary powers of the High Court with regard to an order of the Sessions Judge. For reasons which will appear in a moment, we can do no more than express an academic opinion about the decision of the Sessions Judge against which complaint is made2. We have no jurisdiction to entertain this reference at all. It is not made to us under any section of the law, or under any known procedure. It stands no higher as a matter which we can entertain in due course of law, than a letter or complaint sent to the High Court in-formally by any.citizen. As a matter of strict procedure, it should never have been put up before a Judge in Court at all, although one can understand that the officials in the office entertained some doubt as to whether they ought to disregard it altogether or whether they ought to lay it before a Judge ...
Musa Imran Vs. Bhagwan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All359
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a certain village that was alleged to have been leased by the defendant to the plaintiffs for a period of nine years on the 3rd of February 1920. The annual rent reserved by the lease was Rs. 400. The suit was valued at Rs. 400 and was filed in the Court of the Munsif. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the village in dispute was worth about Rs. 20,000 and that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsif. This plea was overruled by the learned Munsif and eventually he passed a decree in the plaintiffs' favour. The defendant filed an appeal against the decree of the trial Court in the Court of the District Judge. One of the pleas urged in the lower appellate Court was that the learned Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such, the decree passed by him was a nullity.2. This plea was overruled by the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed. In second appeal before me the...
Dwarika Tewari and ors. Vs. Mata Badal Mali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All781
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The plaintiff's case was that half of old plot No. 5 corresponding to plot No. 11 of the recent settlement was mortgaged by Sheo Sahai, grand-father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and great grand-father of plaintiff 3 to Ram Prasad Mali grand-father of defendant 1 about 45 or 46 years prior to the, institution of the suit for a sum of Rs. 49-15-0 and that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage.2. The defence to the suit was that the plot in dispute never belonged to the plaintiffs and was never mortgaged to defendants' ancestor and that the defendants were in possession of the plot in dispute not as mortgagees, but as fixed rate tenants. Both the Courts below have accepted the pleas urged in defence and have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.3. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that a portion of plot in dispute was made a gift of by one Thakur Narain Singh, who was the zem...
Babu Ram and anr. Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All358
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif of Pilibhit, dated the 20th May 1926, setting aside an ex parte decree. The present applicants brought a suit against the father of the non-applicant. A written statement was filed in the suit by the father which shows that he must have been served with the summons referred to in Article 164 of the Limitation Act. The father then died. Presumably the non-applicant was brought on the record as a son of the defendant. He, however, failed to appear on the date fixed for the hearing of the case and a decree was passed ex parte against him on the 15th December 1925. On the 19th April 1926, the non-applicant applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree against himself on the ground that, although he was aware of the case against his father being fixed for the 15th December, he had been under the impression that this date was not for final disposal but merely for bringing his name on the record and reached th...
Badri Prasad and anr. Vs. Girdhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All405
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them for their share of the profits against the defendant lambardar under Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The claim was with respect to 1325 to 1328 Faslis. The suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The plaintiffs claimed profits on the basis of gross rental. This has not been allowed by either of the Courts below.2. In appeal before me, two points have been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In the first place it is argued by him that the collections made by the lambardar in the years in suit represented a very small percentage of the rents actually due from the tenants, and as such the lower appellate Court ought to have presumed that it was due to the negligence of the defendant lambardar that a large percentage of the rents remained uncollected and, in view of the provisions of Clause (2) of Section 164 of the Agra Tenancy Act, ought to have passed a decree in the plai...
Balbhadar Singh and ors. Vs. Udai NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All741
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandson of one Nakchhed Singh and claimed to have inherited these properties through Nakchhed Singh by virtue of a deed of settlement dated the 5th December 1888, executed by Gopal Singh. It appears that in that year Gopal Singh was the sole surviving male member of his family, and had dependent on him his deceased brother's widow Mt. Rahsa, a daughter's son, Nakchhed Singh and the widows of two predeceased sons of his own. He wanted to make provision in his lifetime for these people and executed the deed in question under which he made grants of various items of property to these people in succession. The plaintiffs' interpretation of this document is that the grants made to the three ladies were grants to them for their lifetime and the remainder belonged to Gopal Singh which was inherited on his death by his daughter's son Nakchhed Singh from whom ...