Allahabad Court March 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.
Rikhdeo Tewari Vs. Sukhdeo Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All45; 102Ind.Cas.175
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Rikhdeo Tewari to have adjudged void a sale-deed dated 27th May 1912, executed by his grandmother Mt. Naulasi along with his elder brother Sukhdeo, who purported to execute it both on behalf of himself and of the plaintiff, a minor at the time. The suit was brought on the allegation that Mt. Naulasi's husband was Sita Ram, a son of Sheo Tewari and that the property came down to Mt. Naulasi from Sheo Tewari through Sita Ram. Both the Courts below found that, as a matter of fact, Sheo Tewari was not the father of Sita Ram but the uncle, and that Sita Ram predeceased Sheo Tewari. They consequently found that when Sheo Tewari died, Mt. Naulasi had no title to the property left by him and that her possession of the same must be held to be adverse to the reversioners of Sheo Tewari. There is no direct evidence to show how Sukhdeo came to be associated in the sale-deed impugned, but it is suggested that he was merely joined at the inst...
Baz Bahadur Singh and ors. Vs. Raghubir Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All385
Mukerji, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a redemption suit. There was a mortgage executed by one Durga Singh in favour of three persons Gaya Prasad and two others, for a sum of Rs. 5,700 on the 11th of January 1877. The mortgage was a usufructuary one. The plaintiffs who claimed to have received the property on foot of a will executed by Durga Singh, seek to redeem it on payment of a certain sum of money. The defendants are transferees of the original mortgagees. The question is what is the amount that has to be paid in order to effect redemption. On behalf of the appellants, it has been contended that the lower Court should not have allowed the mortgagees a sum of Rs. 122 and the interest thereon, a sum of Rs. 20-12-0, on certain grounds. We have to see whether the appellants are right.2. It appears that one of the items that make up the sum of Rs. 5,700, the total mortgage money, was a sum of Rs. 1,011 agreed to be paid by the mortgagees and to be received by the mor...
Raja Sri Krishna Dutta Dube Bahadur Vs. Ram Achhaiber Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All491; 102Ind.Cas.261
Lindsay, J.1. This case comes before us as a reference made by the Board of Revenue under the provisions of Section 254 of the Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926. The points referred for our opinion are set out in a letter addressed to the Registrar of this Court and signed by the Registrar of the Board of Revenue. It is stated in this letter that the members of the Board of Revenue desire the opinion of this Court on three questions of law which are specified. Along with this reference a number of records have been sent which, so far as we are able to gather, are records of cases which the Board of Revenue has already decided.2. Looking at the terms of Section 254 of the Tenancy Act above referred to, it appears to us that this section contemplates a reference to this Court by the Board of Revenue in connexion with some case which is actually pending before the Board. We do not think that this section justifies any reference in order to obtain an opinion upon any question of law arising ...
Mt. Khallo Vs. Jawala Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All538; 101Ind.Cas.759
1. This is an appeal solely on the ground that the lower appellate Court had no power to reduce the rate of the interest on a mortgage. The suit on the mortgage was not contested by the mortgagor presumably because he had by subsequent mortgages so burdened the property that it was of no interest to him. A subsequent mortgagee has contested the suit, but he was of course not in a position to know what passed between the mortgagor and the prior mortgagee and, therefore, he could not lead any evidence that the prior mortgagee was so situated as to be able to dominate the will of the mortgagor. We are left then with the sole fact that the interest is by ordinary canons extortionate, but we have no material on which to hold that there was any undue influence brought to bear on the mortgagor. In view of the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Raghunath Prasad Sahu v. Sarju Prasad Sahu A.I.R. 1924 P. C. 60 the mere fact that the interest is heavy is not sufficient to attract th...
Jiwan Singh and anr. Vs. Sheodan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All764
1. This is an application in revision raising a point of some importance bearing on the practice of the lower Courts. Certain persons appealed from their conviction by a Magistrate and one of the grounds urged was that the Magistrate had not read over or caused to be read over the evidence of the witnesses on the completion of each deposition, but had considered it sufficient that the Reader should repeat aloud each sentence as he wrote it. The learned Sessions Judge has held this to be more than an irregularity within the meaning of Section 537 and that the omission vitiated the whole trial. The learned Judge had not before him the view of the Privy-Council expressed in Abdul Rahman v. Emperor . The decision in that case reached the country subsequent to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. It has not yet been reported in the authorized Law Reports. In our view, even before their Lordships' decision, there could have been no real doubt that the omission complained of in this ca...
Bhagwan Dat Shastri and anr. Vs. Raja Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All406
1. This second appeal arises from a somewhat peculiar suit. The plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a contract by which the plaintiff undertook to perform some kind of 'puja' which is referred to as 'anushthan' in order to cause the defendant to be successful in a suit which he had before the Courts. In the event of his success the plaintiff was to get one-tenth of the decree money. The plaintiff partially, at any rate, carried out his part of the contract and the defendant was successful in his suit. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the present suit to enforce the payment of one-tenth of the decree money. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's claim in part, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the agreement entered into between the parties was contrary to public policy. 2. The question of whether this agreement was contrary to public policy is the only one that has been argued before us in second appeal. It has been argued on beha...
Mt. Bibi Ramji Vs. Karim
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All544; 101Ind.Cas.630
Dalai, J.1. A zemindar sued a Muhammadan ryot for removal of a pakka mosque built by him and for possession of the land underneath. This is a second appeal, and I am bound by the findings of fact recorded by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court. He held that in place of this pakka mosque there was a kachcha mosque' at the same spot belonging to the Muhammadans of the village prior to 1925 and that three years prior to the institution of the suit in August 1922, the Muhammadans had commenced rebuilding the mosque and turning the kachcha building into a pakka one and had collected materials in such a way as to warn the zemindar of their intention, On these grounds he held that though neither the kachcha nor the pakka mosque was built with the permission, of the zemindar, the zemindar was estopped by reason of the principles of acquiescence from having the mosque demolished now.2. Mr. Haribans Sahai, on behalf of the appellant zemindar, quoted a Bench ruling of this Court report...
Abdul Ghafur and ors. Vs. KamaluddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All441
Lindsay, J.1. The question which is raised for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs pre-emptors were liable to pay Rs. 8,750 for the property sought to be pre-empted or only Rs. 5,500 as founded by the Courts below.2. Ordinarily, the question as to the price which was paid for properties sought to be pre-empted is a question of fact, Which cannot be considered in second appeal. In this case, however, it is alleged that the law as laid down in Section 17 of the Agra Pre-emption Act, has been misapplied and that the judgment of the Courts below cannot be accepted.2. We think it advisable, therefore, in the first instance, to-consider the prosions of Section 17 above mentioned. It is not to be denied that the section is unfortunately worded and obscure. Sub-section (1) states that where in any suit on the basis of the sale, the Court finds that the plaintiff has a right of pre-emption, but that the ostensible price was not the actual price, it shall proceed to ascertai...
Bindesri Prasad and anr. Vs. Sat NaraIn Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All522a; 101Ind.Cas.551
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for money on a security bond. The facts may be briefly stated as follows:Certain plaintiffs sued certain defendants for cancellation of an alleged Will of an uncle of the plaintiffs, and they obtained a decree. Upon the respondents appealing the plaintiffs asked that security be taken under Order 41, Rule 10 and the present defendants furnished such security. This Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit; but subsequently on appeal to the Privy Council the decree of the Subordinate Judge was restored. The plaintiffs in the original suit thereupon sued the sureties in relation to the security bond furnished by them, on the allegation that the original defendants were insolvents. Both Courts have dismissed the suit. We think that there is no doubt that they were right in so doing. Order 41, Rule 10,is expressly concerned with the costs incurred hitherto and in the High Court and has no bearing whatever on coats which may be dependent upon ...
Abdullah and anr. Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All532
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for refund of money realized from them by the sale of cattle. A Co-operative Bank in Bulandshahr went into liquidation and a liquidator was in due course appointed. He found that one Zahur was a debtor of the Bank. Proceedings in such a case are governed by the Co-operative Societies Act of 1912. Section 42 of this Act has been amended for the purposes of these Provinces by the United Provinces Act 3 of 1919 which has added to Section 42 a Sub-section 4(a) which reads as follows:Any sum ordered under this section to be recovered as a contribution to the assets of the Society or as costs of liquidation may be recovered, on a requisition being made in this behalf to the Collector by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the liquidator on his behalf invited the Collector to attach certain animals-cattle and horses-being the property of Zahur. An attachme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »