Allahabad Court May 1927 Judgments
Deo NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Jagat NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All662; 103Ind.Cas.237
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and joint possession. The properties have been given different momenclatures. I, however, adopt those given in the lower appellate Court's judgment. The plaintiff's case was that Jaipal, the common ancestor, was joint with his four sons and grandsons, and while the family was joint, properties in lists A, B, C, D and E, were acquired under permanent leases, and were joint family properties and that later on property in list F was acquired out of the joint family funds, though in the name of Deo Narrain, defendant. The plaintiffs allege that Jaipal died in 1922, while still joint, and they have, therefore, an interest in all the properties in suit.2. Deo Narain Singh and others contested the claim on the ground that Jaipal separated from his sons before 1916, that properties in lists A, B, C and D were the exclusive properties of Jaipal, and that under a will, dated the 10th of February 1916, he g...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Upper India Ltd. Vs. Fanny Skinner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All681; 103Ind.Cas.293
Walsh, J.1. This is an application by the sole liquidator of the Bank of Upper India asking me, as the Judge in winding up, to issue an order sanctioning the liquidator bidding for all properties which may be put up for sale at any future time, under execution proceedings taken for the sale of properties under mortgage-decree, which the liquidator may obtain on mortgages given to the bank now in liquidation, and also asking for sanction to bid in the case of those properties which have already been put up for sale, and in which the sales have been set aside, and in which the properties have to be put up for sale again. In the first place I am asked to issue notice to all whom it may concern. Who is meant by that very general phrase I have not the slightest idea, nor has the learned Counsel making the application. He suggests that I should issue notice to all alleged mortgagors, who may be parties to pending suits in which decrees for sale may possibly be granted, or who may hereafter b...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Prasad and anr. Vs. Mohammad Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All704; 103Ind.Cas.229
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur allowing the plaintiffs-respondents to withdraw a suit decided against them by the Munsif of Shahganj (Jaunpur) under Order 23, Rule 1(2).2. The plaintiffs brought a suit to redeem a certain mortgage. It was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that Bipat from whom the plaintiffs purchased the equity of redemption was no relation or successor-in-interest of the original mortgagor Jhagru. The plaintiffs set up relationship between Bipat and Jhagru through one Biru, alleged to be the great-grand-father of Jhagru and the great-great-grandfather of Bipat. The Munsif, after a careful judgment, held that no relationship was proved between Bipat and Jhagru. The plaintiffs appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur. One of the grounds of appeal was that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration certain documents filed by the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Naipal Vs. Bans Gopal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All713; 103Ind.Cas.289
Ashworth, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Judge of the Small Cause Court, dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit. The plaintiff mortgaged his holding to the defendant on the 16th July 1874. Under the terms of the mortgage, which was usufructuary, the defendant was bound to pay to the zamindar the rent due for the holding but failed to do so. In 1926 the zamindar brought a suit for arrears of rent against both the mortgagor and the mortgagee. A decree was obtained on the 9th September 1926. The plaintiff paid up the mortgage money on the 30th September 1926. He then brought this suit to recover the payment from his mortgagee. It appears that on the 27th July 1926, before the zamindar got his decree for arrears of rent, the plaintiff had sued the defendant for redemption of his mortgage. Issues in that suit were struck on the 27th November 1 926.2. The lower Court has held that under Order 34, Rule 7 the plaintiff could have, in the mortgage suit asked fo...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Sri Ram Vs. Jwala Shanker Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All775
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of property situated within the municipal limits of the town of Jalesar. There were many points in dispute and the Court of first instance framed no less than four issues. One of the points was whether in view of the passing of the Agra Pre-emption Act, the suit was not maintainable. The Court of first instance in a clear judgment held that the Agra Pre-emption Act was not applicable to the suit and the case was governed by the old law. It then proceeded to consider the other, issues and ultimately passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has reversed that decree on the sole finding that under the Agra Pre-emption Act, all other rights of pre-emption have been abrogated.2. We are of opinion that the lower appellate Court has erred in this conclusion, Section 1, Sub-clause (3) of the Act clearly provides that it does not apply to any area included within the limits of a Municip...
Tag this Judgment!ishri Prasad Vs. Sri Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All510
1. The appellant sued the respondent in the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur for recovery, of Rs. 979-9-6 as due to him from the respondent under a decree obtained by the appellant in the Rampur State.2. The plaintiff's case was that the respondent was living in Rampur State at the time that the suit was filed and the decree was obtained by the plaintiff, but subsequent to the passing of the decree, the defendant had left Rampur State and settled within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsif of Saharanpur.3. The suit was contested by the defendant inter alia on the ground that he was not residing in Rampur State at the time of the institution of the suit in the Court of Rampur State and as such, the foreign judgment obtained by the plaintiff could not be enforced against him, in view of the provisions of Section 13(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.4. The learned Munsif, while holding that the defendant and one Kesaree were jointly and severally liable for the...
Tag this Judgment!Puttu Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Chandar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All689; 103Ind.Cas.255
Walsh, J.1. This case has been referred to the decision of two Judges. For my own part, I think it is concluded by the findings of fact. It is quite true that the mere interpretation of a document standing by itself is rarely, if ever, a question of fact but it is equally true that where a document leaves part of the subject-matter ambiguous, evidence may be given on both sides to remove the ambiguity. It is not disputed that the document in this case is ambiguous in the sense that a stranger reading it, knowing nothing about the parties or the property, might think, and reasonably think that it dealt with the proprietary rights of the property, whereas persons concerned in the transfer might show to the stranger, or any other third party including the tribunal that inference was not well founded, because before the transfer and after the transfer, they themselves, by their conduct showed that they never intended to deal with the ownership but with a limited interest. The foregoing sta...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Ramjas Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-26-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All782; 103Ind.Cas.268
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by one Munshi Ramjas Das for a declaration that two plots 152 and 425 in the village of Shahpur Bamhna are his property and are in his exclusive possession, and also for mesne profits.2. There was a partition in the village, and in the course of that proceeding in the revenue Court the two plots in suit were awarded to the contesting defendant, the appellant Babu Kanhaiya Lal. The only point for decision in second appeal is whether the present suit was barred by Clause (k) Section 233, Land Revenue Act. Under that clause of that section a decision of the revenue Court in a partition proceeding cannot be challenged in a civil Court. In the present suit, however, it appears from the finding of the trial Court, which was upheld by the lowest appellate Court, that the plaintiff, although a co-sharer in the mahal, was no party to the partition proceedings. Under Section 110, Land Revenue Act, when the application was made for partition, the plaintiff toge...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Faiyazi Begam Vs. Sabir HosaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All691; 103Ind.Cas.264
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for a declaration that a certain decree under Order 34, Rule 6 was not binding on the plaintiff as having been obtained by fraud.2. The circumstances must be briefly set out. A father executed a mortgage of certain property. Subsequent to his death his four sons executed another mortgage in favour of a different mortgagee and covering part of the same property and partly an additional property. The father mortgagor left behind him besides sons certain daughters. The subsequent mortgages finally paid off the prior mortgagee and then brought a suit on both mortgages. To that suit he only made the sons defendants. In the event he wanted a decree under Order 34. Rule 6, and he applied for and obtained such a decree. He, however, applied for and obtained this decree not only against the four sons, who had been defendants in the suit, but against the two daughters. It has been found as a fact that the two daughters were duly served, though th...
Tag this Judgment!Manmohan Das and ors. Vs. RashiduddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All698; 103Ind.Cas.244
Dalal, J.1. It is to be regretted that the respondents are not represented here. Syed Majid Ali has argued the appeal very thoroughly and put before the Court all the law on the subject. This was not done before the executing Court and that is why its attention was not drawn to facts which would bring, the last application for execution of 17th December 1925, within time. The decree was originally passed on 13th April 1920 for money. There were two applications for execution: one of 20th May 1921 and the other of 18th May 1922. The judgment-debtor Mohammad Junaid died during the continuance of the second application, and on 6th January 1923 the decree-holder applied to have the names of Mohammad Junaid's heirs substituted. It was not known who the heirs of Mohammad Junaid were, but fortunately for the decree-holder one of the admitted heirs, Najmul Huda, desired to be made a party. That application of 6th January 1923 was a step-in-aid of execution because under the Civil Procedure Cod...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »