Allahabad Court June 1927 Judgments
(Lt. Raja Misra) Kali Charan Vs. Bholi Bakhsh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All711
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land (No. 176) by ejectment of the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that he was the zamindar of the plot in dispute and the defendants were tenants-at will of the said plot which was being used by them for the purpose of keeping a tal. The plaintiff alleged that, notwithstanding the fact that he had given a legal, notice to the defendants calling upon the latter to vacate the plot, the defendants did not sever their connexion with the plot and did not deliver possession to the plaintiff.2. The defence to the suit was that the plot in dispute was part of the occupancy holding of the defendants, and was being held for agricultural purposes and that the relationship of landholder and tenant existed between the parties to the suit, and, as such, the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court. It was also pleaded by the defendants that inasmuch as a former suit brought by the plaintiff fo...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal and anr. Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All3
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed dated 3rd August 1911, executed by Tori and Duli in favour of Sheikh Wahid-ud-din for Rs. 1,000 at 2 per cent. per mensem compound interest. The property mortgaged consisted of 8 biswas out of 18 biswas 10 biswansis zamindari share in village Urena. The present plaintiffs claimed to be the transferees of the mortgagee rights under a sale-deed dated 12th May 1913.2. It appears that in 1908, Tori and Duli had brought a suit for possession as reversioners against Damodar Das, defendant 2, who was in possession of the estate, alleging himself to be the adopted son of the deceased male owner. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and Damodar Das appealed to the High Court. While the appeal was pending, Tori and Duli executed the mortgage-deed of the 3rd August 1911, which is in dispute in the present case. Subsequently on the 17th March 1913 Tori and Duli on the one hand,...
Tag this Judgment!Tamiz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Syed Mohammad Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All127; 108Ind.Cas.462
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant appellant. The facts briefly are as follows: One Riyaz Husain mortgaged his property to the plaintiff in 1911. He died leaving three daughters and a son. The son falsely alleging a gift of the whole property, sold it to the plaintiff in June 1920 for Rs. 4,000. Of this sum Rs. 2,400 were set off against the money due on the mortgage, and the balance paid over. The consequence was that the plaintiff from holding as a mortgagee commenced to hold as a vendee. One of the daughters of Riyaz Husain, namely, Mt. Tamiz-un-nisa, brought a suit to obtain possession of one-fifth of the property on the ground that it was hers by inheritance from Riyaz Husain and that her brother had no right to dispose by sale of her one fifth share. She brought the suit in the Court of the Munsif, and was successful. It must be presumed that the suit, as brought by her, was within the co...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Dayal Lal Vs. Lalji Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All838; 106Ind.Cas.524
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought for recovery of possession of a one-anna zemindari share and for a declaration that certain sir and khudkasht lands appertain to that share. The plaintiff's case was that the property in dispute belonged to his maternal grandfather, Nand Kishor Lal, on whose death it was inherited by his grandmother, Mt. Shitab Kunwar for her lifetime; that Mt. Shitab Kunwar had two daughters, Mt. Maharani Kunwar and Mt. Daulat Kunwar, plaintiff being a son of Mt. Maharani, and defendants grandsons of Mt. Daulat Kunwar. Plaintiff alleged that, on the death of the two daughters, he was the sole surviving daughter's son and he became the heir to the estate in preference to the grandsons of Mt. Daulat Kunwar. He referred to the fact that he himself had executed a sale-deed in favour of Lalji Sahai, but that he was not at that time aware of the fact of his legal right. The contesting defendants pleaded that plaintiff was fully aware ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi Prasad Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All41
Ashworth, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of a suit brought by Lachmi Narain, minor, against his father, Munni Lal, defendant 2 and Ganpat Rai, purchaser of house property from the father, by a sale-deed, dated the 29th April 1927, for possession (by which must be meant joint possession with the father) of the property. The plaintiff alleged that the sale by his father was not binding on him on the ground that the father was insane at the time of execution of the deed. Alternatively he pleaded that the property being ancestral joint property his father could only sell it if the sale was necessary, and that the sale was unnecessary. The defence was that the father was never insane but competent to execute the deed, and that the sale was necessary. It is to be noted that the sale purported to be executed by the father both on his own account and also as guardian of the plaintiff.2. Both the lower Courts have decided that the father was not incompetent on the score of his mental c...
Tag this Judgment!Sidh Gopal Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All65
Ashworth, J.1. This Second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent Behari Lal, against the defendant-appellant, Sidh Gopal, for recovery or a certain half share in zamindari property. The plaintiff was admittedly in possession of the other half share. There wore three brothers Behari Lal, the plaintiff, Nand kishore and Hargobind. Nand Kishore is the father of the defendant Sidh Gopal. He died 30 years ago. Hargobind died only four years ago, and it is the share of the zemindari property which he enjoyed during his lifetime that is the subject-matter of the present suit. The plaintiff Behari Lal's case is that Hargobind died separate from the others, and that he, as Hargobind's brother, has a preferential right to the property over his nephew Sidh Gopal. The defence of Sidh Gopal is that the deceased Hargobind and his father (afterwards himself) were joint and that Behari Lal was separate. This plea was rejected by both the lower Courts, and we are precluded by ...
Tag this Judgment!Equitable Trust Co. and ors. Vs. Hafiz Mohammad Halim and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All97; 108Ind.Cas.699
Sen, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present application have been stated in First Appeal from Order No. 53 of 1927, just disposed of by us, and do not require any further recapitulation.2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the opposite party that the application for revision is not competent. It has been argued that the order in question is an interlocutory order, and that no 'case' has been 'decided' within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C., and, in consequence, no application for revision lies to this Court. In answer to this contention it has been argued that the applicants were necessary parties to the action, and the Court has committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by disallowing the petition, and thereby excluding a party whose presence was necessary in the action, and without whose presence the action could not be satisfactorily decided.3. Reliance has been placed in Umed Mal V. Chand Mal A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 142. In this case the mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Equitable Trust Co. and ors. Vs. Hafiz Mohammad Halim and Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All120
Sen, J.1. This appeal and the connected civil revision arise out of the same proceeding.2. The Deccan Trading Co., incorporated in America, New York, entered into a partnership with the defendant firm for the purchase and sale of hides and skins, and the agreement was that the parties were to share the profits and bear the loss in equal moieties. Originally the terms of this partnership were not reduced to writing. Skins and hides used to be purchased by the defendants in India and shipped to America, and the plaintiffs used to sell the same, and, after sale, the profits and losses used to be received or borne by the parties in equal shares. Some time in 1920 the defendants approached the plaintiffs for certain monetary accommodations on the security of the goods shipped. The plaintiffs, in their turn applied for loans to these banks, The National Bank of South Africa, New York, the Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia, and the Equitable Trust Co. of New York. These banks agreed to...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Makhan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All147
ORDERLindsay and Sulaiman, JJ.1. We have decided that it is expedient that this case should be referred for decision to a Full Bench.2. The case first came before us as first appeal No. 109 of 1923 and was argued and decided on the assumption that the law to be applied was that laid down in the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894).3. On an application for review of judgment being made on behalf of the respondent, the Secretary of State for India in Council-it became apparent that what was really under appeal was the award of a tribunal constituted under the U.P. Town Improvements Act, 1919 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 1919).4. In Section 58, Clause (d) of that Act as originally enacted it was provided that the award of such a tribunal should be final. But under the U.P. Town Improvements (appeals) Act of 1920 (Act 3 of 1920) it is now declared by Section 3 that a right of appeal exists analogous to the right of second appeal conferred by Section 100, Civil P.C.5. The U.P. Town Improvements Act h...
Tag this Judgment!Jaishth Madho Achariyaji and ors. Vs. Thakur Sri Gat Ashram Narainji
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All134; 108Ind.Cas.452
Lindsay, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is one of limitation, namely, whether the suit was governed by Article 62, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, as contended by the appellant, or by Section 10, Limitation Act, as found by the Court below. Article 62 provides a period of three years' limitation for a suit to recover money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. Section 10 of the Act, contemplates a suit brought against a, person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or his legal representatives or assigns, for the purpose of following such property or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds; and it is declared that a suit for any of these purposes shall not be barred by any length of time. In order to decide this question it is necessary to consider the nature of the suit and the legal position of the contesting defendant, Jaishth Madho Achariyaji, who...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »