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.
Rattan Chand Vs. Ram Kishan Murarji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All447; 114Ind.Cas.743
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that a mortgage decree dated 26th July 1922, obtained on the basis of a mortgage-deed dated 5th December 1920 executed by the plaintiff's brother Gulab Chand and hypothecating joint family property was not binding on the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff's father, Hardeo Das, carried on business in partnership with his brother-in-law Kalyan Mal under the style Hardeo Das Kalyan Mal. He died in 1917 leaving Gulab Chand, his adopted son, and two subsequently born sons, Ratan Chand and Madan Gopal, the latter two being minors. The business in partnership with Kalyan Mal was admittedly carried on till 9th October 1919 on which date there was its dissolution and Kalyan Mal separated. Madan Gopal had in the meantime died. Accounts were made, outstandings were divided and liabilities were apportioned. The liabilities, however, exceeded the assets to a very considerable extent and amounted to about Rs. 4...
Pulandhar Singh Vs. Bhagwat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All547; 114Ind.Cas.873
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent brought in a revenue Court. The plaintiff took a usufructuary mortgage of a certain share in the village and the mortgage-deed expressly excluded certain sir plots. In respect of that the plaintiff applied to the Collector under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, for an order specifying the land in which ex-proprietary tenancy had been created and fixing the rent payable therefor. The mortgagor apparently did not appear and the case was decided ex parte. The Collector specified some plots and fixed some rents. The present plaintiff, on the strength of that order, brought a suit to recover the rent so fixed through the revenue Court. The defendant contested the claim on the ground that he was not an ex-proprietary tenant but the proprietor of those plots inasmuch as they had never been mortgaged. The first Court decreed the claim, but the District Judge dismissed it. A second appeal came up before a l...
Raghubir Saran and anr. Vs. Ram Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All651; 114Ind.Cas.33
Sen, J.1. This and the connected appeal arise out of the same suit instituted by the daughters' sons of one Pat Ram, who died about the year 1894. At the time of his death, he appears to have been in fairly affluent circumstances and the property he left is the one, which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. His family, on the date of his demise, consisted of a widow Mt. Dareo Kuar and three daughters, Mt. Mathuri, Mt. Mahru and Mt. Dhapo. Pat Ram's widow, Mt. Dareo, remained in possession of his property for a number of years and at the time of her death, she did not leave any liabilities behind in the shape of debts or charges upon the property. The exact date of the death of Mt. Dareo is not known, but it is an admitted fact and there is no contest that upon her death, the three daughters got possession of the property under the ordinary Hindu law of succession. Mt. Mathuri died in 1907 and the estate came into the possession of Mt. Mahru and Mt. Dhapo as joint tenants. ...
Chandrika Lal and ors. Vs. Sami Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All133
Weir, J.1. This is an application to review an order of the additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur by which he granted to the respondents in this application permission to withdraw a suit which they had brought against the applicants, and granted them liberty to bring a fresh suit. The ground on which permission was granted was that the respondent had not put in evidence a mortgage decree under which they had purchased the land in suit. The learned Subordinate Judge ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the applicants. In the course of the argument I have been referred to several decisions. In my opinion I am bound by (and I shall follow) the decision of a two Judges' Bench of this Court, namely, Jhunku Lal v. Bisheshar Das [1918] 40. All. 612. In that case the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the suit and to bring a new suit, the ground being that he had failed to give formal proof of a document which was essential to his success. The only other case which I need notice is...
Govind Prasad Vs. Har Kishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All131
Weir, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in a civil suit to review an order of the Small Cause Court Judge of Meerut dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The facts are these: The plaintiff, who is the applicant in these proceedings, brought a suit against the defendants, who are the respondents in these proceedings, on 20th May 1927. That suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3, in consequence of neither party having appeared when the suit was called for hearing. The plaintiff applied to the learned Judge on 3rd September 1927, to have the suit restored, and the learned Judge dismissed that application. The plaintiff then brought a new suit upon the same cause of action on 17th October 1927. In that suit the learned Judge has passed the following order:The application for restoration was dismissed. The present suit is not maintainable. Dismissed with costs.2. In my opinion the learned Judge was clearly wrong in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring a second suit, ...
Mt. Nabi-un-nissa Vs. Liaqat Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All508; 113Ind.Cas.723
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by one Mt. Nabi-un-Nissa, who was defendant 1 in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.2. One Irfan Ali died leaving two widows, the elder of whom is the appellant before us and four children. Out of the children there was only one son, Muzaffar Ali, who figured in 'the suit as defendant 3. The wives and demandants of Irfan Ali, were impleaded as defendants. Irfan Ali purported to create a waqf of his property by a deed, dated 11th June 1918. This waqf was created under Act 6 of 1913, and was meant mostly for the benefit of his wives and children; He directed that 1/30th part of the income of his property should go for the benefit of two schools. On the death of Irfan Ali, the appellant sued the remaining heirs of her late husband for her dower. The result was a compromise, by which certain portions of the property left by Irfan Ali were given to her in satisfaction of a portion of her dower, and she was permitted to proceed, by way of execution, ...
Kunwar Singh and ors. Vs. Abdur Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All525
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint possession of certain plots of cultivated land and for the ejectment of defendant 1. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 are zamindars and co-sharers of the mahal in which the property is situated. The plots in suit formed the occupancy holding of one Sarajnath Singh, who died in the year 1912 leaving no heirs entitled to succeed to his interests. The occupancy holding, therefore, lapsed or escheated to the zamindars. On the death of Surajnath Singh one of the co-sharers namely Ramdhari Singh, took the holding in his cultivatory possession and cultivated it for two years as his khudkasht. On 10th July 1914, Ramdhari Singh executed a perpetual lease of the land in suit in favour of defendant 1, fixing an annual rent and taking a premium of Rs. 300.2. The plaintiffs claim that the perpetual lease is invalid and null and void as against them. They claim that they have-been ousted from joint possession owing to the action of Ramdhari Sing...
Krishna Das and ors. Vs. Ram Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All558
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders arising out of execution proceedings. A final decree for sale was passed on 30th April 1919 in favour of the appellants against the respondents. The property ordered to be sold was found to be ancestral property with the consequence that the civil Court under Section 68, Civil P.C., transferred the execution of the decree to the Collector. The decree was for about Rupees 11,000, and the Collector accepted payment of Rs. 6,000 and granted a lease of the property for a period of 12 years directing that the lease money, at the rate of Rs. 500 a year, should be paid towards the discharge of the decretal amount. He also reduced the rate of interest from 6% to 5%. The decree-holders sought to get this order revised in appeal by the Commissioner, but failed. An application to the Board of Revenue also was infructuous.2. The decree-holders then applied to the execution Court praying that all proceedings taken by the Collector may be ...
Partap Singh and ors. Vs. Nand Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All591; 113Ind.Cas.729
Dalal, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant zamindars. The plaintiff Nand Kishore had been drawing water for irrigation from a kachcha well in plot 476. He is a tenant. There was a partition between the zamindars, that is between the defendants and the immediate zamindar from whom Nand Kishore held the land cultivated by him. Plot 476/2, in which the kachcha well existed, fell to the share of the defendants and not to the share of the plaintiff's zamindar. Thereupon the defendants prevented the plaintiff from watering his field from the well, whereupon the plaintiff sued for an injunction and damages. The suit was decreed by both the subordinate Courts, and hence the defendants have appealed. The plaint is a document of merit and very carefully details the reasons for the claim. In para. 1 it is stated that the plaintiff is an occupancy tenant of certain plots of land in the village. Formerly the land was situated in mahal Khushal Singh and the plaintiff had irrigated his cultivat...
Kunwar Singh and ors. Vs. Abdul Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.891
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for joint possession of certain plots of cultivated land and for the ejectment of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are zemindars and co-sharers of the mahal in which the property is situated. The plots in suit formed the occupancy holding of one Surajnath Singh, who died in the year 1912 leaving no heirs entitled to succeed to his interest. The occupancy holding, therefore, lapsed or escheated to the zemindars. On the death of Surajnath Singh one of the co-sharers, namely, Ramdhari Singh took the holding in his culivatory possession and cultivated it for two years as his khudkasht. On the 10th July, 1914, Ramdhari Singh executed a perpetual lease of the land in suit in favour of defendant No. 1, fixing an annual rent and taking a premium of Rs. 300.2. The plaintiffs claim that the perpetual lease is invalid and null and void as against them. They claim that they have been ousted from a joint possession owing to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »