Allahabad Court April 1928 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.
Mt. Tamiz-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Muhammad Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All714; 113Ind.Cas.745
1. The only question before us is whether a part of the claim is not barred on the ground of res judicata. One Riyaz Husain was the owner of a certain property which he mortgaged with possession to the respondent, Syed Muhammad Husain. He died, leaving him surviving three daughters and one son. The son, Faiyaz Husain, sold the entire property to the respondent, Muhammad Husain, alleging that he was the sole heir of this father. Out of the sum of Rs. 4,000, Rs. 2,400 went to pay off the mortgage and the balance was paid to the vendor. Tamiz-un-nissa, the appellant before us, a sister of Faiyaz Husain, brought a suit (No. 336 of 1920) in the Court of the Munsif of Moradabad for recovery of her one-fifth share of the inheritance. Muhammad Husain, in that suit, in his defence, did not set up his usufructuary mortgage. The result was that the suit of Tamiz-un-nissa was decreed for possession. The respondent, Muhammad Husain, has now brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for...
Shri Dhar and anr. Vs. Udaibir Singh Judeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All17
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants against an order, in appeal, of Mr. Norton, the learned District Judge of Jhansi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of a grove No. 704 of mauza Kuthonda in Jalaun District. The sole ground on which the lower appellate Court has proceeded is that the matter is res judicata between the parties on account of previous litigation in the revenue Courts. The previous litigation consists of a suit for ejectment brought by the present respondent Rao Sahib Udaibir Singh against one Mulu as his non-occupancy tenant of less than 12 years standing. The present respondent granted a lease to Mulu and in the same year in which he granted the lease he brought a suit for ejectment against Mulu. That suit for ejectment was dismissed by the Assistant Collector but was decreed in appeal by the Commissioner on 12th July 1922. During the pendency of the suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector the present appellant appli...
Shri Dhar and anr. Vs. Rao Saheb Udaibir Singh Judeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.454
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants against an order, in appeal, of Mr. Norton, the learned District Judge of Jhansi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of a grove No. 704 of Mauza Kuthonda in Jalaun District. The sole ground on which the lower Appellate Court has proceeded is that the matter is res judicata between the parties on account of previous litigation in the Revenue Courts. The previous litigation consists of a suit for ejectment brought by the present respondent Rao Sahilb Udaibir Singh against one Mulu as his non-occupancy tenant of less than 12 years standing. The present respondent granted a lease to Mulu and in the same year in which he granted the lease he brought a suit for ejectment against Mulu. That suit for ejectment was dismissed by the Assistant Collector but was decreed in appeal by the Commissioner on July 12, 1922. During the pendency of the suit in the Court of the Assistant Collector the present appellant appli...
Urjun Vs. Mathura Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All395
1. The relative position of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table: Poda ____|____ ______________ ________ | | | | Gopal Chilua Satian Tika Defendant alias | No. 1 Narain | | ___________ ______________ | | | Padam Roopa Arjun Defendant Defendant Plaintiff No. 3 No. 42. The property in controversy in this suit is a house which originally belonged to Poda, the common ancestor. Gopal is the own brother of Tika. Tika is the father of the plaintiff and of defendants 3 and 4. On 6th January 1912, Gopal sold the house to Mathura Nathji, defendant 2, and the latter has remained in possession of this property since the date of the sale. Tika died about 17 years ago. The present suit was instituted on 14th February 1924, for the avoidance of the sale-deed and for recovery of the possession of a half-share in the house on the allegation that Gopal was not competent during the minority of the plaintiff and his brothers to transfer the property by sale to defendant 2.3. The c...
Mansa Ram Vs. Mohammad HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All624
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff of the first Court is the appellant here. He is the zamindar and defendants 1 to 3 are his exproprietary tenants. Defendant 4 is a sub-lessee from defendants 1 to 3. The suit was brought for the ejectment of the defendants on the ground that the tenants were using the land for a purpose which was inconsistent with agriculture. Defendant 4 has a ginning and pressing factory and they have been given this land for the purpose of collecting and spreading cotton and they have been using it for the same purpose.2. The defence was that the land had been in use of defendant 4, for the present purposes, for several years and the suit was barred by limitation.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation but the learned District Judge set aside this finding. He was of opinion that a fresh lease which was granted to defendant 4 in July 1924, gave a fresh cause of action to the plaintiff. The learned Judge however, gave defendants 1 to 3 ...
Ram Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All157
Dalal, J.1. The applicant Ram Chand has been convicted under Section 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act (6 of 1912), for selling adulterated ghee. His prosecution was duly sanctioned as required by Section 12 of the Act, but a complaint was not lodged till more than thirty days after the sanction by the Health Officer. The argument here was that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the prosecution. Section 15 lays down that no summons shall issue for the attendance of any person accused of an offence under Section 4, unless the same is applied for within thirty days from the date upon which the order of consent referred to in Section 12 shall have been made or given. In my opinion this section does not deal with the jurisdiction of the Court. Jurisdiction arises under Section 12 on the order or consent in writing of the Health Officer. If the applicant had disobeyed the summons, he could not have been prosecuted under Section 174, I.P.C. When, however, he...
Lachman and anr. Vs. Bhajan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All389; 114Ind.Cas.874
1. The parties to this case are sweepers residing in the city of Muttra. The plaintiffs-appellants brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for an injunction restraining the defendant from rendering services as a sweeper in the dharamsala of Seth Ram Gopal claimed by the plaintiffs as part of their 'birt,' which, as we understand it, means that they have the exclusive right to serve for remuneration in certain houses not necessarily situated in a compact area.2. It is not clear from the plaint as to what origin is assigned to the plaintiffs' right. Their case as stated in the plaint is that a house of which the boundaries are given together with other houses 'has been the birt property of the plaintiffs and their ancestors for a long time,,' that another house of which the boundaries are also given formed part of the defendant's birt, and that a dharamsala has been recently constructed by Seth Ram Gopal on the sites of the two houses but that the latrines appertaining to th...
Madan Mohan Gargh Vs. Munna Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All497
ORDERDalal, J.1. I certify this to be an application which shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges.2. This is an application for transfer of a certain suit from the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Agra. On 14th February 1928 the parties put in a petition before the Judge of that Court to the effect that the Court may pass any decision it liked after inspecting the locality in the presence of parties and their pleaders. Subsequently the plaintiff Madan Mohan Gargh was dissatisfied with certain actions taken by the Additional Subordinate Judge, and applied to this Court for transfer of the case. The question is whether such an application can lie. It is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the application of 14th February 1928 was in the nature of a compromise, and, therefore, the suit must be decided in accordance with the terms of the compromise, and cannot be transferred to any other Court. A Bench ruling of Sita Ram v. Piari Lal was quoted.3. If the application is...
In Re: Section 25, Paper Currency Act (10 of 1923)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All371
Boys and Kendall, JJ.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Fatehpur under Order 46, Rule 1. He has referred two suits, one No 350, and one No. 310. The Munsif himself states that in Suit No. 350 an appeal will lie, and there is, therefore, no power in him to make the reference. But in Suit No. 310 no appeal lies, and it was open to him to make the reference, and we have to entertain it. Notices have been served on the parties and nobody appears.2. The learned Munsif states the question referred as follows:Whether a promissory note made payable to bearer on demand offends (against) the provisions of Section 25, Paper Currency Act No. 10 of 1923.Is such a promissory note void and inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the basis of a claim in any Court of law?3. He states that promissory notes payable to bearer on demand are a common form of promissory notes occurring in the district of Fatehpur, and that 'at least about 100' of such promissory notes are the basis of suits pending in hi...
Miyan Bux Vs. Masammat Bodhiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.630
Boys, J. 1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Fatehpur under Order XLVI, Rule 1. He has referred two suits, one No. 350 and one No. 310. The Munsif himself states that in Suit No. 350 an appeal will lie, and there is, therefore, no power in him to make the reference. But in Suit No. 310 no appeal lies, and it was open to him to make the reference, and we have to entertain it. Notices have been served on the parties and nobody appears.2. The learned Munsif states the question referred as follows:Whether a promissory note made payable to bearer on demand offends (against) the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Paper Currency Act X of 1923?Is such a promissory note void and inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the basis of a claim in any Court of Law?3. He states that promissory notes payable to bearer on demand are a common form of promissory note occurring in the District of Fatehpur, and that 'at least about 100 of such promissory notes are the basis of suits pending in his Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »