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.
Mashal Singh Vs. Ahmad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All534; 103Ind.Cas.363
Walsh, J.1. In our opinion this appeal must be allowed. In most respects we agree with the very clear judgment of the lower Court, but there is one respect in which we find ourselves unable to agree with the Judge. In discussing the right of the widow to remain in possession till her dower debt has been satisfied and the right of her heirs, who are entitled to succeed her, to exercise and enforce the same right, the learned Judge makes this addendum: 'and if wrongfully deprived thereof, to maintain a suit for its recovery'. This is true, but not correct in the sense in which the learned Judge used that phrase. The right to maintain a suit for recovery of possession, if wrongly deprived thereof, has nothing to do with the right of lien. It is the ordinary right under the Specific Relief Act for a person rightfully in possession to sue on a possessory title for recovery of possession if he has been wrongfully deprived of it, but such a suit must be brought within six months of the wrongf...
Subhan Ali Vs. Chittu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All631
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by two minor plaintiffs for a declaration that a sale-deed, dated the 25th of July 1916, executed by their mother Mt. Kelo, who was appointed their guardian by the District Judge, in favour of the defendant-appellant, was null and void, and was ineffectual to adversely affect their title to the house conveyed by that sale-deed. The plaintiffs alleged that there was no legal necessity for the transfer made by their mother, and that the sale by her was made without the permission of the District Judge, and as such was voidable at their option. It was also alleged in the plaint that the sale-deed was not read over and explained to Mt. Kelo nor did she understand the nature of the transaction, and though this allegation of the plaintiffs was denied in the written statement, no issue was framed on the point by the trial Court, and there is no discussion about this point in the judgments of the Courts below and, as such, it is ...
Ram Surat Singh and ors. Vs. Badri NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All799a
Walsh, J.1. To my mind this is a clear case and has been misconstrued in the Courts below owing to two fallacies against which I have frequently protested. I think the Courts have misunderstood it probably because they did not actually study Arts. 142 and 144, Limitation Act, which deal with totally distinct matters which unfortunately are constantly confused, even by decisions in the High Court. Secondly, the lower appellate Court committed the fault of deciding the limitation issue only instead of disposing of all the issues so that the Court of appeal could give a final decision if it was wrong. Now the case will have to go back. It is a difficult task to decide in every case what cause of action the plaintiff intended to set up when the controversy is about the Article in the Limitation Act, partly because the pleading is not consistent and also because I am afraid pleaders have by bitter experience got into the habits of claiming possession when really the relief which they claim ...
Pyare Lal and ors. Vs. Firm Meena Mal-bal Kishen Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All621
Walsh, J.1. I am of opinion that this decision is right, though I find myself unable to agree with the reasoning by which it has been arrived at. The facts, so far as they are known, are perfectly simple. In 1922 the defendants sold a large quantity of grain to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid a substantial sum as earnest-money. No date was specified for delivery. The goods were to be delivered at a later date, presumably on demand. The plaintiff assigned his rights under the contract. It looks very much as if the transaction was a gambling transaction, but the parties have not said so. He then foolishly and ignorantly brought a suit for non-delivery, or, in other words, for breach of the contract which he had assigned in 1925. That would have been right if he had joined the assignee as plaintiff; or, if the assignee had refused, as defendant; but having assigned the contract and, having sued without the assignee, his claim for nondelivery was defeated by a technical objection. On...
Tirlok and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All660
Boys, J.1. Those two cases illustrate the unfortunate results that follow when Magistrates endeavour to rush through what threaten to be protracted proceedings regardless of the provisions of the law. Some 16 accused persons, of whom the present applicants are four, were under arrest in view of a contemplated gang case against them. The authorities, as they were perfectly entitled to do, decided to be content with proceedings under Section 110. An order under Section 112 was drawn up on the 15th July, giving notice to the accused persons of proceedings that it was contemplated to take against them under Section 110, Criminal P.C., 15 prosecution witnesses were forthwith examined. One of the present applicants, Dudhnath, was released on bail, the others remained in jail. The proceedings were held at Chaura. This was probably for the convenience of everybody, both prosecution and accused, but the result of holding proceedings at that place was naturally that there were no legal practitio...
Haji Mohammad Said Khan Vs. Kunwar Darshan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All835
1. This is a defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a house brought by the reversioners of Naik Rai Singh, who was the last male owner. He died some time in 1876 leaving two widows; one of whom died in 1890 and the other, Mt. Sundar Kunwar, died in 1917. In 1903 Hori Singh was the next reversioner, who would have succeeded to the estate if Mt. Sundar Kunwar had died then. On the 21st September 1903 she executed a deed of transfer in favour of Hori Singh, purporting to surrender all her interest in the house in dispute. On the 22nd September 1903 a sale-deed was executed by Hori Singh in favour of the defendant-appellant, Haji Mohammad Said Khan, and both these documents were presented for registration simultaneously between 1 and 2 o'clock on the 22nd September, and both were registered consecutively. On the death of the widow the plaintiffs, claiming to be the next reversioners, brought this suit for recovery of possession. The pedigree on which they r...
Haji Muhammad Said Khan Vs. Rai Bahadur Kunwar Darshan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.116
1. This is a defendant's appeal, arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a house brought by the reversioners of Naik Rai Singh, who was the last male owner. He died some time in 1876, leaving two widows, one of whom died in 1890, and the other Musammat Sundar Kunwar died in 1917. In 1903 Hori Singh was the next reversioner, who would have succeeded to the estate if Musammat Sundar Kunwar had died then. On the 21st of September, 1903, she executed a deed of transfer in favour of Hori Singh, purporting to surrender all her interest in the house in dispute. On the 22nd of September, 1903, a sale-deed was executed by Hori Singh in favour of the defendant-appellant, Haji Muhammad Said Khan and both those documents were presented for registration simultaneously between 1 and 2 o'clock on the 22nd of September, and both were registered consecutively. On the death of the widow the plaintiffs, claiming to be the next reversioners, brought this suit for recovery of possession. The pe...
Man Singh and anr. Vs. Chunni Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All785
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that defendant 1 had no right in execution of a decree against defendants 2 and 3, to get attached and sold the right to realize a sum of Rs. 190. The facts of the case are as follows:2. Defendant 1 is said by the respondents' counsel to be the zamindar; of the holding. Defendants 2 and 3 are the occupancy tenants. The plaintiffs obtained possession of the holding from defendants 2 and 3 under an agreement purporting to be a sub-lease, dated the 29th June 1921. This document recited that the plaintiffs should occupy the holding as sub-tenants of the defendants 2 and 3 on an yearly rental of Rs. 190. It recited further that no payment in cash or kind of the Rs. 190 should be made by the plaintiff to the defendants 2 and 3 but that this sub-rent, as soon as it became due, should be appropriated in the following manner: Rs. 51-12 were to be paid to the proprietor of the land as re...
(Bhaiya) Sanoman Singh and ors. Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All848
1. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether an appealable decree, against which an appeal has not been filed, becomes final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal from that decree; or does the decree become final on the very day on which it was passed. Both the Courts below have held that a decree capable of being appealed against does not become final till the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal against that decree.2. The facts that led to the present appeal are as follows: Ram Harakh Pande, the respondent, obtained a decree for pre-emption against the appellants on the 16th March 1921. The decree in favour of the respondent was conditional on the payment by him of the purchase-money within 30 days from the date of the decree becoming final. The appellants appealed against that decree and the first appellate Court, on the 30th June 1921, dismissed the appeal. The purchase-money was deposited by the ...
Bhaiya Sanoman Singh and ors. Vs. Raja Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.457
1. The question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether an appealable decree against which an appeal has not been filed becomes final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal from that decree, or does the decree become final on the very day on which it was passed. Both the Courts below have held that a decree capable of being appealed against does not become final till the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an appeal against that decree.2. The facts that led to the present appeal are as follows: Ram Harakh Pande, the respondent obtained a decree for pre-emption against the appellants on the 16th of March, 1921. The decree in favour of the respondent was conditional on the payment by him of the purchase-money within 30 days from the date of the decree becoming final. The appellants appealed against that decree and the first Appellate Court on the 30th of June, 1921, dismissed the appeal. The purchase-money was deposited by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›