Allahabad Court February 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.
Jadunandan Rai Vs. Bindeshri Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All434; 101Ind.Cas.497
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case and his suit for preemption has been dismissed. It is not denied that the plaintiff Jadunandan is related to the vendor Mt. Sundra for they are both descended from a common ancestor named Ram Dat. The plaintiff's case, however, has failed in the Courts below on the ground that he is more than four degrees removed from the common ancestor according to the rule which is laid down in Section 12(3) of the Agra Pre-emption Act. A reference to the pedigree which is set out in the judgment of the trial Court shows that the plaintiff is the great-greatgrandson of Ram Dat, and Mt. Sundra, the vendor is the great-granddaughter of Ram Dat.2. It is by no means easy to interpret the Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Pre-emption Act. But after giving the matter our best consideration we are of opinion that in this case the plaintiff's claim for preemption must fail. It appears to us that Sub-section (3) of Section 12 provides for a scheme of preferen...
Gulab Shanker and anr. Vs. Mul Chand-nimi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All444; 101Ind.Cas.57
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of interest on a debt of Rs. 4,000 incurred by defendant's father on the 11th of April 1921. The debt is evidenced by what is in the document itself described as a 'ruqa.' Admittedly up to the date of suit no action of any sort was taken by either the plaintiff or the defendant or his father in regard to this debt beyond that the principal was paid up in three instalments of Rs. 1,000, Rs. 1500 and Rs. 1,500, on the 10th of October 1923,, 20th of January 1924 and the 1st of April 1924, respectively. These instalments of principal were expressly paid as instalment of principal and they were, therefore, credited as such. The suit was filed on the 9th of April 1924, and up to that date no demand for interest had been made by the plaintiff as against the defendant.2. The ruqa in question simply stated that the defendant's father had borrowed Rs. 4,000 cash (ap se udhar liye hain) 'which is to be debited to my account and I have, theref...
Mt. Chunmun Kuari Vs. Jagotbali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All540; 101Ind.Cas.518
1. This litigation has bad a chequered history. It arose out of a sale which was carried out on the 16th of June 1920. The sale was of property in three villages in the Gorakhpur District and the vendors were persons against whom a decree for sale on a mortgage had been obtained. The property was sold on the date above mentioned to the decree-holders, two ladies named Mt. Chunmun Kunwar and Mt. Murat Kunwar, and in the sale-deed it was stated that although the actual value of the property sold was not more than Rs. 1,000, nevertheless as an act of grace, the purchasers were willing to give the vendors credit for the sum of Rs. 1,500 in part satisfaction of the decree existing against the vendors at that time which was on the point of execution.2. Three suits were brought to pre-empt this sale. The first of them was brought by Jagatbali and others (Suit No. 243 of 1921). A month later two other suits were filed respectively by Basant Lal and Dhanpat Lal; Basant Lal's suit was No. 316 of...
Mohammad Karamat Ali Khan Vs. Ganeshi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All552; 101Ind.Cas.516
Makerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent for the years 1328 to 1330 F. under the following circumstances.2. The defendants-respondents are father and son. The Defendant No. 1 as the lather of two minor sons of his and the Defendant No. 2 as an adult son mortgaged their zemindari property to the appellant's father Kunwar Latafat Ali Khan. This was on the l0th of May 1913. The defendants alone (without the minor sons of the Defendant No. 1) executed on the same day, 10th of May 1913, a counterpart of a lease (qabuliat) by which they purported to take over the mortgaged property under a lease and agreed to pay a certain amount of rent. Subsequently, on the 20th of September 1915, the original mortgagors, lather and sons, borrowed a further sum of money from the same mortgagee and gave a mortgage-deed. On the same day, the two defendants agreed by a document to pay enhanced rent the amount added being the amount due as interest on the money subsequently borrowed. ...
Kali Charan Sharma Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All649
Lindsay, J.1. This case arise from an application made by Pt. Kalicharan Sharma under Section 99-B, Criminal P. C., as amended by Act, 36 of 1926.2. The applicant is the author of a book written in Hindi and entitled 'Bichitra Jiwan' which was first published at Agra in November 1923 and which purports to treat of the life of the prophet Mohammad.3. In October last the Local Government of these provinces took action under the powers conferred by Section 99-A of the Code (as amended by the Act above mentioned) and declared the book to be forfeited to His Majesty on the ground that it contains matter the publication of which is punishable under Section 153-A, I. P. C.4. By the application now before us we are asked to set aside this order of the Local Government on the ground that the book does not contain such matter as is referred to above. In support of his application Pt. Kali Charan pleads:(1) That he has taken his facts and material from authoritative Muslim literature and standard...
Mt. Hafizan and ors. Vs. Chhakko Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All779; 101Ind.Cas.526
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the decree-holders. They sought to attach certain groves in execution of their decree against the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors objected to the attachment on the ground that the groves sought to be attached were on a portion of their ex-proprietary holding and as such were not saleable in execution of the decree. This objection was overruled by the learned Munsif but has been accepted by the lower appellate Court. It is clear from the finding of the lower appellate Court that the trees sought to be attached and sold by the decree-holders are situate on a portion of the ex-proprietary holding of the judgment-debtors-respondents. The trees were planted by the judgment-debtors or by their ancestors on their sir land. In view of the Full Bench decision in Jugal v. Deoki Nandan [1886] 9 All. 88 the judgment-debtors must be deemed to have the rights of an ex-proprietary tenant in the groves in dispute. In other words the groves...
Tamiz Bano Vs. Nand Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All459; 101Ind.Cas.507
Mukerji, J.1. The facts involved in this appeal are briefly these. A certain person, Abdul Qayum, whose heirs-at-law, the defendants are, borrowed, on a bond on the l6th of March, 1921, a sum of Rs. 300 from the plaintiffs. He having died before the institution of the suit, it was filed against his heirs. Among the heirs was the original appellant to this Court, Mt. Tamiz Bano, who, was a widow of the deceased and is since dead. She denied the execution of the bond by her late husband and said that, on the death of her husband Abdul Qayum, her dower of Rs. 25,000 was due to her and that consequently the remaining heirs of Abdul Qayum sold his property to her in lieu of her dower. She did not say exactly what the effect of her defence was, but clearly she contemplated that the suit could not be maintained as no property of Abdul Qayum was left in the possession of his heirs. The other defendants did not contest the suit, The Munsif decreed the suit. He did not come to any very definite ...
Darbari Lal and anr. Vs. Mahbub Ali Mian and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All538a; 101Ind.Cas.513
1. This was a suit brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur, to enforce a mortgage of the 16th of January 1913, executed by the wife and sons of one Khurshed Ali Mian, deceased. The plaintiffs also alleged that they had preferential right to the payment of the moneys secured by their mortgage in priority to one Rani Barkatunnissa.2. The learned Subordinate Judge decided that the mortgage was effective in so far as it concerned the share of the wife and of the two major sons, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. He also held with regard to Rani Barkatunnissa that she stood on an equal footing as regards her advances with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed from this decision, and the ground they took is that as between Khurshed Ali Mian and Mt. Latifunnissa, his wife, Mt. Latifunnissa was the owner of the entire property, and as such was competent to mortgage it. They alleged the further ground that the sons and daughters were not competent to question the validity of an aw...
Tulshi Ram Vs. Bishnath Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All735a
Lindsay, J.1. These two appeals are connected and arise out of two suits, the first by Tulshi Ram mortgagee to enforce a mortgage executed by Bishnath Prasad in 1917 and the other a suit for a declaration by Bishnath Prasad's minor son that a simple money decree of 1921 obtained by Tulshi Ram was not binding on the plaintiff. The case for the minor son in both the suits, apart from a denial of consideration, was that Bishnath Prasad was a person of grossly immoral character and that the money taken by him, if at all, was spent on immoral objects. On the other hand Tulshi Ram's position was that the money had been acquired for purposes of legal necessity, family business and for the payment of antecedent debts. In Tulshi Ram's suit the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the full consideration did pass and that the money was taken to a large extent for payment of previous debts, and has passed a personal decree against Bishnath Prasad. He has, however, held that the burden of provi...
Kishori Lal, Makundi Lal Vs. Jauhari Mal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All436
Boys, J.1. The plaintiff came into Court with very clear allegations that he had instructed the defendants who were commission agents, to purchase certain castor seed on account of the plaintiff, that the defendant had as result of the transaction made a secret profit of Rs. 1,100, with which they ought to have credited the plaintiff. He alleged that the defendants had actually sold the castor seed on the 7th of August 1919, but he said further that, though he knew of the sale of the castor seed, he did not know that the defendants had made a secret profit out of that sale until the 14th of August 1922. when in a suit brought by the defendants for, money they alleged to be due to them from the plaintiff, the defendants' munib gave evidence, and as a result of that evidence the plaintiff says it came to his knowledge that the defendants had made a secret profit. Both Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that assuming Article 90 to be the appropriate article of the Limitati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »