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.
Sita Ram Vs. Nanku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All16; 106Ind.Cas.250
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents Nanku and Sukhu, against one Sitaram, appellant, for a declaration that a sale-deed purporting to have been executed on the 2nd June 1923, by Deosaran defendant 2 (i.e., respondent 3) was forged, fraudulent and fictitious. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on a finding that the defendant Sitaram had failed to prove the due execution of the deed by Deosaran his vendor.2. On first appeal the Subordinate Judge of Benares found that there had been no clear issue in the trial Court as to forgery, and that, by reason of the absence of a clear issue, defendant 1 may have been led into supposing that he was not required to produce evidence of due execution of the deed by Deosaran. He accordingly framed an issue whether the sale-deed was genuine and had been executed by Deosaran, and took fresh evidence.3. The defendant Sitaram produced a finger impression expert. He gave evidence that the thumb-impression o...
Mohammad Muslim and ors. Vs. Musammat Mahrania and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-17-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.271
1. This is a Reference under Section 267 of the Agra Tenancy Act (III 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 of 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 (III of 1926) the suit was not entertainable in a Civil Court. The learned Munsif considered that the question of law whether the Civil or Revenue Court was the correct forum, was one of difficulty and has accordingly made this...
Mohammad Bashir Khan and anr. Vs. Mt. Kulsum Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All545; 103Ind.Cas.308
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of shares sold in two mahals in village Mohammadpur Kalan. The property was transferred under a sale-deed dated the 16th of February 1923, which was presented for registration on the same date, but was actually registered on the 17th of February. The plaintiffs came into Court both on the ground of Mahomedan Law, the custom of pre-emption, and the provisions of the Agra Pre-emption Act of 1922. No evidence was led as regards the performance of any talab, and the case so far as it was based on the Mahomedan Law was apparently not pressed. The Court below has held that the transfer took place before the coming into force of the Agra Pre-emption Act and is therefore not governed by the new Act. It has also held that inasmuch as there were single proprietors in both mahals at the time when the wajib-ul-arzes recording an entry of a right of pre-emption were prepared, there could be no custom, nor even any contract. The s...
Mukand Lal and anr. Vs. Naubat Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All635; 103Ind.Cas.360
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs were parties to a partition proceeding in the revenue Court. The application for partition was made by the defendants on 23rd February 1921, and a proclamation was issued under Section 110, Land Revenue Act (Local No. III of 1901) for any objections as to title to be lodged on or before the 12th of April 1921. On that date the plaintiffs did not object to the amount of the share declared to be theirs by the defendants in the application for partition. Partition proceedings were drawn up by the Assistant Collector under Section 114, Land Revenue Act, on the 9th November 1921, and they were confirmed by the Collector on the 24th August 1922. Partition was made in accordance with these proceedings and lots were prepared. The plaintiff Mukand Lal actually signed the lot allotted to him. Subsequently, over a month later, on the 17th of November 1.922, he objected that the share allotted to him was not correct, and the objection was referred to the civil Court by t...
Sarwan Pande Vs. Jagat Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All771; 103Ind.Cas.315
1. This application in revision arises out of an arbitration award made without the intervention of the Court. The plaintiffs-opposite party filed an application under para. 20, Sch. 2, Civil P.C., to have the award made a rule of the Court. The learned Munsif disposed of the application by an ex-parte order in the following terms:Judgment-suit for the enforcement of an award. Defendant's pleader states that he has instruction. Suit is heard ex-parte. Claim is not proved. Decreed with costs.2. Against this order an appeal was filed by the present applicant in the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge set aside the order of the learned Munsif and remanded the whole case for trial de novo. Against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge there was an appeal to this Court. But this Court held that as only one appeal is allowed by the Code against an order, a second appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge was not maintainable. Accor...
Mahabir Rai and ors. Vs. Mahadeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All686; 103Ind.Cas.367
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. Exceptions to the general rule that a sharer in immovable property has a right to claim separate possession by partition of his share are provided for by Sections 2 and 4, Partition Act (Act 4 of 1893).2. The principle underlying Section 2 of the Act is that a partition ought not to be made if by partition the intrinsic value of the property sought to be partitioned would be destroyed, and, in such a case, money compensation should be given in lieu of the share to which a share-holder may be entitled. Section 4 of the Act has application only to those cases in which a share in a 'dwelling house belonging to an undivided family' has been acquired by a stranger to that family, and that stranger claims partition of his share. To the present case, as would appear from the facts to be presently stated, Section 4 has no application.3. The plaintiffs claimed partition of two houses marked A and B. They were granted a decree for partition of house...
Bhagwant Lal Vs. Sri Ram Chandra Naik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All19; 103Ind.Cas.654
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of a Bench of this Court pissed on appeal on the 9th November 1926.2. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance was over Rs. 10,000 and is stated that the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty is the same. The decree of this Court affirmed the decision of the Court below, but it is claimed that this notwithstanding, the case fulfills the requirements of Section 110, Civil P. C, because the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Alternatively it is prayed, with reference to the language of Order 45, Rule 3(1) that a certificate may be given that the case is otherwise a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.3. The substantial question of law put forward by the petitioner in support of his claim that the case satisfies the requirements Section 110, is admittedly not a question of general importance but relying upon a recent judgmen...
Nasir Ahmad and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All579
Dalal, J.1. Abdul Rauf and certain other persona have applied in revision for the setting aside of two orders under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that they should furnish security to keep the peace. What happened was that upon a report of the police the Magistrate, on that information, issued 'notices to these persons to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds without sureties for keeping the peace for a certain period. On the 28th of October, Abdul Rauf appeared in the Court of the Magistrate and stated' 'machalka dena chahta hun,' i.e., he is desirous of giving a bond. The Court thereupon ordered that if he was so desirous should file the bond; and on the 29th of October he filed the bond. On the 12th of November, the other applicants desired that they should be permitted to enter into personal bonds. They made this statement, as is apparent from the record, after the Court had written the words 'P.W.1,' presumably in preparation of recording the s...
Surta and anr. Vs. Dalli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All629
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff-respondents in the revenue Court under Section 58(a) read with Section 34, Agra Tenancy Act (Act-2 of 1901). The plaintiffs' case was that they were the occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute and the defendants were 'the sub-tenants without the consent of the plaintiffs' and the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for ejectment of the defendant. In substance the plaintiffs' case was that the defendants had taken possession of their occupancy holding without their consent, and the plaintiffs were entitled, in view of the provisions of Section 34, Agra Tenancy Act, to treat them as tenants and to claim a decree for their ejectment. The defence to the suit was that the relationship of landholder and tenant did not exist between the.parties, and that the defendants were in possession as zemindars and the plots in dispute were their khudkasht. It was further alleged by the defend...
Lachmi Chand and anr. Vs. Surja and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All683; 103Ind.Cas.338
Boys, J.1. The plaintiff sued the son of the executant of a promissory-note. The executant and the son constituted a joint Hindu family, and the son was a minor at the date of the suit. Eventually the nazir of the Court was appointed as guardian and the Judge of the Small Cause Court has given the plaintiff a decree against the assets of the father Amir Singh, executant, in the hands of the son. The plaintiff also impleaded as defendant 2, one Khushi Ram, a separated brother of the executant, and alleged that Khushi Ram had taken possession of and sold certain crops which had been sown by Amir Singh and he asked for a decree also against Khushi Ram. This has been refused to him, and the plaintiff now asks us in revision to give him that decree. He relies upon Section 2, Sub-section (2), Section 52 and Section 53; but none of these provisions really help him. The question of what decree, if any, could be passed against Khushi Ram, had to be decided at the time that the learned Judge of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »