Allahabad Court April 1927 Judgments
Bhusi Rai Vs. Ganesh Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All499; 103Ind.Cas.160
ORDERBoys and Kendall, JJ.1. Plaintiff appeals from a decree of the lower appellate Court upholding the decree of the trial Court dismissing his suit based on three mortgages.2. On the 13th of June 1908, the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a usufructuary mortgage of his occupancy holding. As it will be necessary to consider the effect of the various clauses of this mortgage in some detail those clauses may be set out concisely.3. Firstly, the defendant executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff of his occupancy holding.4. Secondly, if the mortgagee was ejected two remedies were given him:(1) he could sue for possession and damages at the rate of ten maunds per bigha;(2) he could sue for the debt and interest against the person and property of the defendant including two houses.5. Thirdly, the occupancy holding and the two houses were declared to be mortgaged to secure the repayment of the debt and interest.6. For the mortgagee, appellant here, it is conte...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal Vs. Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All664; 103Ind.Cas.123
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by rival pre-emptors for a division of property with the contesting defendant. On the 9th August 1923, certain vendors sold the property to certain vendees. Kundan Lal, the contesting defendant brought a suit for pre-emption against the vendees and obtained a decree on the 14th March 1924. He obtained possession under the said decree. The present plaintiffs, who are eight in number, brought the present suit on the 19th July 1924, for a share in the property so pre-empted. The defendant contested that, inasmuch as he was a co-sharer and had acquired the property prior to the present suit, Section 20 was a bar to the plaintiffs' claim. The Court of first instance acceded to this contention and dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Court has come to a contrary conclusion.2. It cannot be doubted that before the passing of the Agra Pre-emption Act the mere fact that a rival pre-emptor had obtained a decree for pre-emption d...
Tag this Judgment!Dongar Singh and ors. Vs. Bhopat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All692; 103Ind.Cas.421
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. No less than nine issues were framed by the Court below, but the suit has been dismissed on only one preliminary point, though the learned Judge thinks that point is covered by three issues, 1, 2 and 3. The solitary point on which the suit has been dismissed is that although the property sought to be pre-empted was situated in three thoks, at the time the sale-deed was executed, under an order of the revenue Court, the village was imperfectly partitioned into 20 pattis which took effect before the institution of the suit and in one of which only the entire property sold fell. The learned Judge has, on this ground, held thataccording to the present constitution of the village the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as co-sharers but will be deemed to be perfect strangers.2. For this startling view, he has relied on the case of Daria v. Harkhial [1909] 31 All. 274. That was a case decided before the constitution of the pre-...
Tag this Judgment!Kishen Lal Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All696; 103Ind.Cas.399
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the deed of sale was in reality a deed of exchange with regard to which no suit for pre-emption could lie. The Court of first instance held that it was a sale and decreed the claim. On appeal the learned Judge has come to a contrary conclusion.2. It appears that on the 5th March, 1924' two documents were executed both purporting to be sale-deeds, one by Ram Singh and Karna of the property in dispute in this case for a sum of Rs. 100 in favour of four sets of persons, and the other by these four sets of persons of a cattle house for a sum of Rs. 100 in favour of Ram Singh and Kama. These two documents were presented for registration on the same date and were registered simultaneously. The learned Judge has ignored the parol evidence led to show that the documents were not independent deeds of sale but represented one transaction. He has, however, relied on certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Launjari Chaube Vs. Parsotam Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All503; 103Ind.Cas.634
Lindsay, J.1. The decision of the Court below in this case is wrong and must be set aside. The suit was a suit to recover Rs. 230 odd said to be due in respect of a loan made by the plaintiff to the defendant on the 21st December 1923, It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed the money and had written a sarkhat. The sarkhat bears a one-anna stamp, but the stamp has not been obliterated and apparently on this, ground the Judge of the Court below dismissed the suit. He was satisfied that the defendant had the money, but he said, as the suit was on the sarkhat and the stamp had not been obliterated, the suit must fail. I do not agree with the Subordinate Judge. I have read the sarkhat; it does not recite any promise to pay on the part of the defendant. It is merely a written acknowledgment that he had borrowed Rs. 150 from the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was able, as he was able, to prove aliunde by oral evidence that the defendant had the money then I think he was ent...
Tag this Judgment!Baij Nath Prasad and ors. Vs. NaraIn Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All614
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is filed by some of the defendants in the Court below. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was one for partition. On the 24th of January 1924, some of the parties and the counsel for others appeared before the learned Subordinate Judge and made a statement which is printed at page 31 of the record. They stated that they would accept the statement which the three pleaders of the Court whose names are mentioned, would make without taking oath. They agreed that if the pleaders were not uniform in the making of the statement, the statement of the majority would prevail. The pleaders were to decide all the points in dispute among the parties and were also to dispose of the question of costs. On this statement of parties being recorded, the learned Subordinate Judge referred the case to the three pleaders. The pleaders took time frequently and ultimately on the 9th of April, 1924, made an application to the Court saying that the statement they had intende...
Tag this Judgment!Shoember Singh and anr. Vs. Shoember Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All780; 103Ind.Cas.128
Kendall, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The circumstances are briefly as follows: One Jodha Singh was an occupancy tenant in a holding of which the plaintiff-appellant is the sole zamindar. Jodha Singh died in 1919, leaving, it is alleged, no heir on whom the occupancy tenancy could legally devolve. Musammat Shiva Piari Kunwar, the widow of his brother, was admitted to the cultivation of the holding and recorded as a non-occupancy tenant with the permission of the appellant's agent. She instituted a suit for arrears of rent against the present defendant-respondent, and her suit was decreed by the first Court, but in appeal the two parties came to a compromise. The defendant thereafter made an application under Section 42, Land Revenue Act, to have his name recorded as the non-occupancy tenant of the holding. The application was opposed by Mt. Shiva Piari, and the plaintiff was a party to those proceedings. The decis...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All783
Lindsay, J.1. I have heard Mr. Damodar Das at length in support of this application for revision. The applicant, Nand Kishore, was fined by a Magistrate for using language which brought him within the scope of Section 506, I.P.C. Application for revision was made to the Sessions Judge who dismissed it agreeing with the Court of first instance that an offence under Section 506 had been committed. It is argued here again that no offence under this section is proved. I agree with the Courts below.2. It seems to me that Nand Kishore, the applicant, was clearly guilty of an offence under Section 506. Nand Kishore is a Municipal Commissioner in the town of Lalitpur. The complaint against him was made by one Hafiz Ullah a butcher. It appears that on the 20th October last Hafiz Ullah bought a cow from a man named Man Singh and was going with Man Singh to the Municipal Board's Office to have the sale of the animal registered. Nand Kishore, for what reason does not appear, interfered and asked M...
Tag this Judgment!L. Parsotam Saran Vs. B. Barhma Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All401
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench of three Judges at the instance of the learned Judges who first heard it. The reason for the reference was that they felt doubtful about the soundness of the case of Sahu Nand Kishore v. Shadi Ram : AIR1926All457 .2. The question for decision is whether in the circumstances of the case, the stay order passed by the High Court should have the effect of nullifying a sale that was held before the order of this Court could be communicated either to the Court below or to the officer conducting the sale. 3. The facts of the case are given in the referring order and I will mention them very briefly only in order to indicate the precise point I have to decide. The judgment-debtor who is the appellant before this court filed certain objections to the execution of a decree held against him by the decree-holders respondents. His objection was dismissed by the execution Court on the 12th of January 1924. The date fixed for sale in execution of...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhtawar Singh and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All599
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a, suit for recovery of Rs. 2,749-6-0 from Chaudhri Balwant Singh on account of part of sale consideration paid by the plaintiffs and damages.2. There is no controversy about the facts. On the 4th of September 1918, the plaintiffs purchased certain property from the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,600 Prior to the sale the defendant had entered into a contract with Ranjit and Bhudat to sell the same property to them. After the purchase by the plaintiffs, Ranjit and Bhudat brought a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale entered into by the defendant. That suit was contested by the present plaintiffs, but was decreed with the result that in execution of the decree obtained by them, Ranjit and Bhudat got possession of the property sold to the plaintiffs, on the 4th December 1920. In the sale-deed executed by the defendant in the plaintiffs' favour there was a stipulation to the effect that if for any reason the property sold p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »