Allahabad Court May 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.
Ganesh and anr. Vs. Dasso
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-20-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.428
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must fail. It is well settled that possessory titles is good against every body except the true owner and, in the case of a wrongful Ouster, a plaintiff is entitled to succeeds upon the strength of previous possession if the defendant fails to prove a better title. Against a mere trespasser prior possession is itself a title inasmuch as possession raises a presumption of title Possession in law is a subsisting rights which the law protects and which can be enforced against any person who does not prove a better title Accordingly in a suit for ejectment against a trespasser based on the plaintiff's title, if the plaintiff fails in proving title in himself but proves that he was in peaceful possession of the property in suit at the time of his wrongful ouster by the defendant, he is entitled to a decree for possession as against the trespasser. In short, in a suit for possession if the plaintiff proves that he was in peaceful possession at the time of dispos...
Bhore and anr. Vs. Habibur-rahman Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All641
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs, one of whom is a lambardar, Habibur Rahman Khan, sued the defendants under Section 160 Tenancy Act, 1901, for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by them on account of the defendants. The defence was that the defendants were no co-share to whom the provisions of Section 160 would apply and that they were not table to pay any revenue whatsoever, because at the time of the last set learned the liability was fixed on the holders of the khalsa and. The defendants are plot proprietors, that is, they hold specific plots which are assessed to revenue. It appears to have been the opinion of the board of Revenue previously that such proprietors were not included in the term co-sharer 'as used in Section 169 and the following sections of the Tenancy Act, 1901. The view, however, has been corrected subsequently after the decision by this Courts in Murli Dhar v. Babu Ram [1920] 18 A.L.J. 121; see Umri Kuar v. Bijay Bahadur 4 U.D. 358. The revenue Court, therefore, had j...
Ambika Naik Vs. Ram Raj Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All668; 103Ind.Cas.277
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal in an execution case by the decree-holder, the application for execution having been dismissed on the ground of limitation.2. It appears that a decree for sale was passed and an order absolute for sale was made on the 13th of March 1907. The last application for execution, the one with which we have to deal, was made on the 11th of December 1920. Some of the judgment-debtors came forward with the objection that the application was time barred having been made beyond 12 years from the date of the making of the order absolute for sale. The Court of first instance overruled this objection on the strength of the case of Kaunsilla v. Ishri Singh [1910] 32 All. 499. The judgment-debtors appealed. While the appeal was pending a bench of this Court dissented from the earlier case in 32 Allahabad and held that the 12 years' rule of limitation enacted in Section 48, Civil P.C., applied equally to decrees, irrespective of the fact whether the decree was passed befo...
Badri Singh and ors. Vs. Sadaphal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All34
Mukerji J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the Courts below were right in interpreting a certain document as a mortgage-deed.2. The facts briefly are these: On 9th August 1865 the ancestor of the plaintiff-respondent, Sadaphal Singh, executed a sale-deed in favour of Bachchu Singh and Achraj Singh, ancestors of the defendants. The transferees did not obtain possession, and they had to bring a suit for recovery of it. In the suit a compromise was entered into though in the deed of compromise it was called only a deed of confession of judgment. This was on the 15th March 1867. The parties agreed to vary the original document which was one of out and out sale. They entered into certain terms, and the decree that was passed adopted those terms. The plaintiff's case is that the compromise coupled with the decree created a mortgage in favour of Bachchu Singh and Achraj Singh and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the property by way of rede...
Bhure and anr. Vs. Maulvi Habibur Rahman Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-19-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.305
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs, one of whom is a lambardar, Habibur-Rahman Khan, sued the defendants under Section 160 of the Tenancy Act of 1901, for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by them on account of the defendants. The defence was that the defendants were no co sharers to whom the provisions of Section 160 would apply, and that they were not liable to pay any revenue whatsoever, because at the time of the last settlement the liability was fixed on the holders of the khalsa land. The defendants are plot proprietors, that is, they hold specific plots which are assessed to revenue. It appears to have been the opinion of the Board of Revenue previously that such proprietors were not included in the term 'co-sharer' as used in Section 159 and the following sections of the Tenancy Act of 1901 This view, however, has been corrected subsequently after the decision by this Court in Murli Dhar v. Babu Ram 55 Ind. Cas. 74 : 18 A.L.J. 121 : 2 U.P.L.R (A.) 41 : 42 A. 311; see Umri Kuar v. Bij...
Mt. Bhagwati Vs. Nandu Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All729
1. This is a plaintiff 's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that a kabuliyat dated the 26th January 1921, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is null and void as against the plaintiff. The plaintiff executed a general power-of-attorney in favour of two persons named Bishambhar Das and Genda Mal on the 2nd February 1918. By the power-of-attorney the said mukhtar-i-ams are authorised to grant leases in respect of the property belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case was that she never consented to empower the said mukhtar-i-ams to lease out her property, and that the said condition in the mukhtarnama was entered without her knowledge. She further alleged that the said mukhtar-i-ams got the defendant to execute a kabuliyat reserving a nominal rent in favour of the plaintiff without her knowledge for their own benefit. It was further alleged that no lease had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, and as such no transfer had take...
Manohar Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All369
1. This is a reference under Section 267 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) and arises out of a suit brought in the Munsif's Court, Fatehpur, by Manohar Singh to eject the defendant Sheo Saran. The plaintiff's case was that he was the proprietor of the land, which was in the occupation of a tenant Ram Sahai, who died on the 20th June 1926 without leaving any heir, with the result that the tenancy reverted to the plaintiff. He alleged that the defendant had no right to occupy the land, but he took wrongful possession as a trespasser at the beginning of the rainy season preceding the suit. The defendant on the other hand pleaded that he was a tenant of the plaintiff, that from him rent had been accepted, and that under Section 44 of the new Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) the suit was not entertainable in a civil Court. The learned Munsif considered that the question of law whether the civil or the revenue Court was the correct forum, was one of difficulty and has accordingly made this ...
Gordhan Das Vs. Husaina and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All659; 103Ind.Cas.34
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff is a decree-holder of a certain decree and attached some jars of rab as the property of the judgment-debtor Imam Bakhsh. Husaina objected, and under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., an inquiry was held, and both parties agreed to abide by the statement which a certain pleader, Mr, Rizwanulwila, might make after local inquiry. The pleader, after inquiry, made a statement that 36 jars belonged to the objector, and those jars, accordingly, were released from attachment. The decree-holder thereupon brought a regular suit under Order 21, Rule 63, treating the order of the Court on the basis of the agreement as one passed in the ordinary course without any reference to an arbitrator. He succeeded in the trial Court, but the lower appellate Court was of opinion that the plaintiff was bound by the statement of the pleader, and dismissed the suit. This is a second appeal. The point is of interest, and considerable help is obtained from a bench ruling of this Court in the...
Gaya Prasad and anr. Vs. Murlidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All714
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application by the respondent, Murlidhar, who had a decree against the father of the appellants, to attach and put up for sale the joint family property belonging to the appellants and their father.2. The respondent brought a suit on a mortgage against the father and impleaded the appellants. It was found that the mortgage-deed had only been executed by the father and one son (other than the present appellants). A simple decree was given against the father and son, and the suit was dismissed as against the present appellants. In execution the judgment-decree-holder sought to attach the joint family property. Objection to this attachment was raised by the present appellants on the ground that at the date when the attachment was asked for what had been the joint family property of the father and the present appellants had become their separate property by a voluntary partition. The trial Court allowed this objection. In second appeal the...
Hasan Ali and ors. Vs. Lachman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All750; 103Ind.Cas.372
Dalal, J.1. The objection raised by the opposite parties (plaintiffs) is that no application for revision lies. The plaintiffs sued in the Court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur for recovery of possession of a certain portion of a market. After the proceedings had advanced, an application was put in by the plaintiffs for withdrawal of the suit. No specific grounds were mentioned in the application, but it was generally observed that there were some legal defects which would lead to the dismissal of the suit. On the presentation of this application there must have been some argument before the lower Court, because the lower Court gives a specific reason for granting the application for withdrawal. The statement in the order is:The fact is that during the excavations of the bazar in suit some signs alleged before by the plaintiffs were found; they showed that the plaintiffs' claim was defective.2. It is most likely that during the pendency of the suit some excavations were made which brought t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »