Allahabad Court December 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.
Karim Khan and anr. Vs. Noor Mohammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1927
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.724
Dalal, J.1. The Court has received considerable help in understanding the law on the subject from arguments of Mr. Shankar Saran and Dr. Waliullah. The entire case law has been placed before me and the facts of the case carefully explained. I have come to the conclusion that the lower Appellate Court has gone wrong and that the judgment of the Munsif is sound. The question at issue is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. The facts are given great detail in the plaint. First of all there was an imperfect partition of a mahal in 1904 under which a lots were prepared and lot No. 1 was allotted to the plaintiff of the present suit and to the defendants Nos. 5 and 18. Subsequently in 1922 the predecessors-in-title of defendants No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 18 applied for another partition. It must be remembered that the partition of 1904 was imperfect so all the co-sharers had to be made parties when a re-allotment of the parties was proposed...
Mt. TaskIn Fatma Vs. Mohammad Munim Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All259
Lindsay, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the District Judge of Budaun on 4th March 1927, in Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1920.2. In order to understand the matter which is in contention before us, it is necessary to say that the appellant here, Mt. Taskin Fatma, is a minor, the daughter of one Ghafur Baksh, deceased. She is now married to Qayum Baksh who after becoming her husband, was appointed by the District Judge of Budaun as the guardian of Taskin Fatma's person and property under the Guardians and Wards Act 8, 1890. Before Qayum Baksh married this minor girl her guardian in the Court of the District Judge was her uncle Sattar Baksh, and while Sattar Baksh was acting as guardian under the Court, he, with the consent of the District Judge, entered into certain arbitration proceedings in order to settle disputes between the sons of the deceased Ghafur Baksh and this girl Mt. Taskin Fatma, regarding the division of the property. Admittedly an award was passed an...
Reshma DubaIn Vs. Ram Dawan Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All309
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff who sought a declaration in the Court below to the effect that she was a certain relation of a certain minor and that the minor was not married. It appears that the plaintiff made an application before the District Judge of Gorakhpur to obtain an appointment of herself as the guardian of the minor aforesaid. The District Judge appointed another person and dismissed her application. It is said that the learned Judge said something in the judgment which amounted to a direction to the applicant that she should obtain a declaration as to her relationship from the civil Court and also as to whether the minor is married or not. A copy of this order which, is in the vernacular, is on the record and has been perused by us. The question, however, remains whether a suit like this is maintainable in the civil Court. The only provision of law under which a declaratory suit as to status may be brought is Section 42, Specific Belief Act. It provides tha...
Babuna Kunwar Vs. Jagat NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All330
Mukerji, J.1. One Bhagirathi Singh, a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law, died, leaving him surviving a widow, Mt. Babuna Kunwar, a son, Jagat Narain and another son, since deceased, Jai Gobind, the father of Sham Narain. The family possessed joint property. By an award, obtained at the instance of Jagat Narain and Sham Narain, the family property was divided equally between the uncle and nephew. Babuna Kunwar, thereupon, asked for a share but was refused. She then instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for the separation of a third share for her. Sham Narain alone defended the suit. His case was that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share under the shastras and that she was possessed of considerable property being her stridhan, and, therefore, she did not require any other property for her maintenance. The Court below held that the plaintiff had no property which could support her and that, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff could not get a share...
Mt. Saraswati Kuar Vs. Mahabir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All476
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration brought by a judgment-creditor Mahabir Prasad against the son and grandson of his original debtor Jai Gobind. On 20th May 1914, Jai Gobind executed a hypothecation bond under which four-annas share is two villages were mortgaged to the plaintiff for Rs. 600 carrying interest at 2 per cent, per month compoundable with yearly rests. On 20th December 1922, the creditor brought a suit for recovery of the amount due to him but in the plaint he stated that for the present he would be content with a simple money-decree. The suit was filed just a few days before the closing of the Court for the Christmas holidays. It was filed at the headquarters at Azamgarh. On 3rd January 1923, Jai Gobind executed a deed of gift of the zemindari properties other than those covered by the mortgage-deed and this document was registered at Deogaon where the parties resided. It was in favour of his own wife and the reason given for the trans...
Nannu Prasad Vs. Nazim Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All274; 113Ind.Cas.93
Lindsay, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal which has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra for the recovery of. Rs. 3, 270-15-0 alleged to be due in respect of a promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant, Syed Nazim Husain, who is the respondent here and who is a pleader in the Agra District Court, resisted the claim and pleaded that nothing was due from him. He admitted in his written statement that he had executed the promissory note upon which the suit was brought, but he put forward the plea that there was an agreement between himself and the plaintiff that the amount entered in the promissory note was to be liquidated by fees to be earned by him for doing professional work for the plaintiff. There were various other pleas raised, but for the purpose of settling the preliminary objection in this case this is a sufficient disclosure of the defence which was put in T...
Aminullah Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All95
ORDERDalal, J.1. This revision reveals some very high-handed proceedings on the part of the Municipal Board of Cawnpore. The facts are admitted. The applicant Aminullah was allotted one of the plots given to stall-holders along the side of a public road from Collectorganj up to the LaTouch Road crossing. The terms of the lease have not been disclosed to this Court, but taking them to be most favourable to the municipality they may be from month to month, terminable at the end of a month. The municipality passed a resolution that this roadside should not be let out in future to stall-holders and that the present stall-holders should be told to quit. The municipality was entitled to pass such a resolution and it was the duty of its executive officer to give proper notice under Section 111 (h), T.P. Act. The municipality would then have been able, on the expiration of the legal notice, to determine the lease. What the executive officer did was promptly to issue a notice under Section 211 ...
Jugul Kishore Vs. Pratab Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All239
Dalal, J.1. It is not possible for me to understand what the President means by the following words:It is true that Lala Jugul Kishore has also filed a reference contending that the amount of compensation should be paid to him. We shall decide the respective claims of Jugul Kishore and Mt. Pratab Dei in that reference.2. First of all a reference can be made, so far as I understand, by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Tribunal and not by a party. Neither I nor counsel for parties have been able to discover the paper which the President calls a reference by Jugul Kishore. Further if the President is seised of the matter in dispute between Jugul Kishore and Mt. Pratab Dei and a reference has been made to him, I. do not understand what stage of proceedings he considers that reference to be. What would be the use of the Tribunal deciding as to whom the money belongs when the money itself has disappeared? It is requested that the President will enlighten me on the following points:(1) Has...
Lachman Vs. Jarbandhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All193; 108Ind.Cas.229
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an objection made by a judgment-debtor of the present appellant to the attachment of certain rent due to him as occupancy tenant, from his subtenant. At the date of the attachment, the rent of which attachment was made, had not become payable by the Subtenant, the period in respect of which the rent was attached being still incomplete. The judgment-debtor accordingly objected that this rent was not covered by the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C., which permits attachment of debts and other saleable property moveable or immovable belonging to the judgment-debtor. The first Court held that as the rent had become due at the date when the objection was heard, it was immaterial that the attachment was made before the rent had become due. It also held that there was no reason why rent could not be attached in advance, i.e., before it became due.2. In appeal, the District Judge upheld the contention of the judgment-debtor on the ground that ...
Mohammad Nazir and anr. Vs. Mt. Zulaikha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All267
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a sale-deed dated 26th August 1918 was null and void, and that the defendants had not acquired any right thereto. The document purported to be a sale-deed for consideration executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff's allegation was that it was a wholly fictitious document never intended to pass title in the lifetime of the plaintiff, and that no consideration had in fact passed, and that the document was void ab initio. Both, the Courts below have decreed the claim.2. The only question of law, which was raised in the Court below and which is raised before us again, is the question off limitation. The defendants pleaded that the suit was governed by Article 91, Lim. Act, and ought to have been brought within three years of the date when the plaintiff had knowledge of the facts. The Court below has held that the article applicable is the general article, namely, Article 120...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »