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.
Bachan Singh Vs. Bhika Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All601
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. While I am anxious not to, in any way, abridge the effect of Section 100 of the Civil P.C., and not to depart from the well-established rule that findings of fact recorded by a Court of first appeal are binding in second appeal, I cannot, in view of the equally well-established rule, that inference from proved facts is always a question of law, affirm the finding or the decision of the lower appellate Court in this case. After an examination of the record I have come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court are not borne out by the facts found by him, and that the conclusion at which the trial Court arrived was correct.2. One Ganga Din obtained a simple money decree against Chandan Singh, father of the defendant-respondent, on the 28th of February, 1910. Before the decree could be executed, Chandan Singh died, and the defendant-respondent, who was then a minor and is still a minor, was brought upon the record as a ...
Munna Lal Vs. Mt. Nanhi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All756a; 103Ind.Cas.385
1. We think that this appeal must succeed. The learned Judge was right in saying in disposing of the appeal that it was rather a ticklish question. He apparently had to undergo quite a fusillade of rulings. Mr. Sapru has referred us to all the cases that really help him. In short we find it impossible to get over the language of the Act as expounded by the Privy Council in the case of Hanuman Kamat v. Hanuman Mandiir [1892] 19 Cal. 123. The case turns upon its own circumstances like most of these cases. The plaintiff purchased some property by means of a transfer. There had been a previous deed of gift, but the deed of transfer recited that it was a nullity, which meant that the vendor was able to give a good title It has turned out that he was not. The plaintiff never got possession. He was delaying in suing, and when he did sue, he succeeded. So that up to that point, although he was experiencing a difficulty there had been no complete failure. But his success was succeeded by failur...
Bhagwandas Singh and ors. Vs. Pinjra Pole Pashu Anathalaya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All789; 103Ind.Cas.45
1. We are or opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. The decision appears to be based upon a finding that the plaintiff had a possessory title sufficient to oust a trespasser. In our view no point of law arises. A great deal has been argued before us, some of which we are unable to follow, suggesting that the body in question, namely, a society or committee with some charitable purpose in connexion with the protection of cows has either no legal existence, or no juristic personality or no existence in fact, or any right to sue, and reliance has been placed upon a decision reported as Mathura Kuer v. Dharam Samaj [1917] 14 A.L.J. 1038. The learned Subordinate Judge, in our opinion, correctly differentiated this case from that case. But some of the arguments before us were based upon certain dicta contained in that decision which appear to us to go too far. It is not the law and never has been the law that an unregistered society cannot hold property. It is not the law and never has ...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Mithan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All559; 103Ind.Cas.326
1. This is an appeal by Ram Prasad, Karan Singh and Ram Chander, who are defendants in a partition application filed by one Mithan Lal under Section 107 of U. P. Act 3 of 1901. Mithan Lal,'who is a co-sharer in khewats Nos. 1 and 2, mahal Hoti Lal in mauza Band Abdulhaipur in the district of Aligarh, applied for perfect partition of his share in the mahal. Notice of this application was issued to all the recorded co-sharers in the mahal. Among others notice was served upon the appellant, and the appellants in the connected appeal filed objections to partition. They claimed to be the separate and exclusive owners of the portions of the mahal which they were in possession of on the ground that about 50 years ago, by a private partition between the co-sharers, they had got the land, and on the ground of adverse possession also, They pleaded that even the inhabited area had been separated by the co-sharers and each co-sharer was in possession of his separate portion, and had built separate...
Devi Chand Vs. Pirbhu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All628
1. This seems to be a case of misfortune, as far as we can tell, and the result of the proceedings is to inflict hardship upon the plaintiff. But we cannot help that, if the law is clear, and it certainly seems as though the plaintiff's advisers had made a serious mistake and caused this loss, if it is one. The plaintiff claims against the defendant something like Rs. 3,000, the price of some cotton yarn, There is no doubt that in a previous suit against the same defendant for rendition of account and for dissolution of partnership, the claim included the said amount on account of some cotton yarn. The plaintiff says so in his plaint in this suit. It appears from the judgment of the first Court in this suit that, in the previous suit, the final appellate Court held that relief could not be given in respect of the claim for the cotton yarn. It is found by the lower appellate Court that on the 5th July the plaintiff applied to withdraw that suit, and on the 11th July he was allowed to wi...
Mt. Haidari Begum and ors. Vs. Thakur Lakshmi Narainji Maharaj and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All636; 103Ind.Cas.77
1. This is a suit under Section 164, Tenancy Act, for profits by a cosharer against the heirs of a lambardar. It has been found not merely that there were no reliable accounts of actual collections, but affirmatively, that the accounts furnished by the defendants are false and misleading; and the lower appellate Court has, therefore, given the plaintiff a decree based on the full amount of the jamabandi. This decree has not been limited to the assets of the deceased lambardar which may have come into the hands of the defendants, as his heirs. No argument was addressed to us on behalf of the appellant that the decree ought in any event to have beep so limited; but, for reasons to which we will refer later, we are of opinion that the decree should have been so limited.2. First, it has been contended that no decree should have been given against the defendants beyond such amount as may have been found proved to have been actually collected; but; in face of the finding that the accounts fu...
Manbahal Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Ghulam Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All633; 103Ind.Cas.43
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. Much as I regret that the defendant, who has absolutely no title to remain in exclusive possession of the plot in dispute, succeeds in the present litigation. I cannot but affirm the decision of the lower appellate Court in this case.2. The dispute between the parties centers round a plot of abadi land which was once the site of the house of one Khudi, who was a ryot in the village. On Khudi's death there was a race between the plaintiffs-appellants and the defendant-respondent for possession of that plot of land. The defendant succeeded in securing a license to build a house, on payment of nazrana from one Shujaat Ahmad Khan, who owns a one-anna share in the village, on the 29th August 1921. About three weeks after that date, viz., on the 23rd of September 1921, the plaintiffs-appellants were given a license to build by other cosharers of the village who owned the remaining 15-annas share in the village. After being armed with the license the plaintiffs wanted to bui...
In Re: Shib Lal Ganga Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All703; 103Ind.Cas.477
1. We have no doubt as to what the answer to this question must be. The assessee is the owner and occupier of certain land in the Agra District which contains valuable stone quarries. These he has been working at a profit for a very considerable time. In 1879 when the land in question was assessed for revenue purposes, the extract from the Settlement Officer's note which forms part of this case, shows that the revenue was assessed against the then owner, upon the basis of the rental value, arrived at by taking into account the profits which he was making from the working of the quarries. That would be quite correct if the problem to be solved was the rental value of the land. It was not cultivated land although it had been cultivated. The Settlement Officer says:Large areas of cultivated land have been gradually absorbed by the quarries.2. Taking into account the average income from the quarries, and adding it to the supposed rental value of the rest of the land, he arrived at an annua...
Girwar Lal Vs. Kallan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All509; 103Ind.Cas.286
Lindsay, J.1. I think this application must fail. The principal ground taken is that the lower Court, namely, the additional Judge of Agra had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. That appeal was an appeal against the appellate order of the Collector and it was filed in the District Judge's Court apparently on the 10th February 1926. It was an appeal under the Agra Tenancy Act (U.P. Act II of 1901) and admittedly was a competent appeal under Section 180 of that Act provided that there had been in issue in the first appellate Court a question of proprietary title which had also become a matter of issue in the appeal. The Judge was of opinion that the appeal was competent and that there had been an issue raising a question of proprietary title in the first appellate Court, namely, the Court of the Collector. I think the Judge was right. The contest arose in this way. One Kallan who owned certain property made a mortgage of it to Girwar and afterwards became the tenant of the mortgagee...
Kundan Lal Vs. Bisheshar Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All734; 103Ind.Cas.165
1. This is an interesting point upon which at one time or another there appears to have been a difference of opinion. The plaintiff has suffered the double misfortune of purchasing property of which he has not received delivery from the vendor, and also of paying the price. The defendant has failed to make a title. The suggestion is that he had already sold to somebody else, although that issue has not been actually determined because the case has been disposed of on the legal question. It seems more likely that it was a piece of dishonesty on the part of the vendor than a mere act of forgetfulness, but that does not alter the law. One result is that the plaintiff has paid the purchase price for a consideration, namely, the transferor of the property, which has failed. That is Article 97. Another view of the matter is that he has paid money to the defendant for nothing which the defendant has no right to retain against the demand of the plaintiff, as was said by the old lawyers, agains...