Allahabad Court July 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.
Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Ram Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All65
1. This is an appeal by two of the defendants, Ram Narain and his son Lachhmi Narain from a final decree dated 16th August 1924, in a suit for partition of the joint family property. The property consisted of moveables, house property and zemindari shares. The three plaintiffs are the two sons and one grandson of Rameshwar Sahu and the principal defendants were Ram Narain, defendant 1, who is the appellant before us, and, Deo Narain, an insane brother of Ram Narain. The share of the plaintiffs in the joint family property was one-half and the share of the defendants 1, 2 and 3 was the remaining half. The suit was resisted upon various grounds but ultimately a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Benares on 23rd April 1924. The operative part of the decree, material for the purpose of the present appeal may be reproduced here:It is ordered and decreed that the account of the defendants is correct, that the plaintiffs' objection be disallowed, t...
Baikunth Nath and ors. Vs. Jai Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All449; 113Ind.Cas.266
ORDER1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties against the defendant Jai Kishun who is in possession. These properties were left by one Mt. Mungi Bahu, the widow of Gangadhar. The plaintiffs claim to be the bandhus of Gangadhar deceased and allege that there are no sapindas or samanodaks or sakullyas of the deceased alive and that they are his nearest heirs. The contesting defendant is the son of Mt. Mungi Bahu's own brother and would not be an heir to the estate if it was a Hindu widow's estate in the hands of Mt. Mungi Bahu.2. The defendant denied the pedigree set up by the plaintiffs and further denied that there was no nearer heir alive in the family of Gangadhar. He also asserted that Gangadhar had made an oral will in favour of his wife Mt. Mungi Bahu who in her turn had bequeathed this property to the defendant of which he had become an absolute owner. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that...
Emperor Vs. Abdul Aziz
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.348
1. This is an appeal by one Abdul Aziz, aged 57, resident of Mohalla Malaka, in the town of Allahabad who has been convicted and sentenced to death by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad, for murdering a little girl named Lattho, aged 9, the daughter of a neighbour of the appellant.2. On the 22nd of February, 1923, Lattho, daughter of Abdul Samad, left her father's house in Malaka to play about. She was never seen alive, and the next time when her father saw anything of the little girl was her trunk without the legs, arms and head in a bundle near the railway line which passes through Malaka.3. At 4 p.m. on the 24th Abdul Samad's wife wanted the little girl Lattho, and two boys Hamid Hussain and Mohammad Ayub were sent out to search for Lattho. These boys were aged 13 and 11 respectively and came back to the house and informed Abdul Samad that the girl could not be found. Abdul Samad and his relations searched for the girl and not finding her till 9 o'clock made a report to the Pol...
Mohammad Ishaq and anr. Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All606
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The facts briefly are these: A decree for sale was made so far back as in 1917. The application for execution out of which the present appeal has arisen was made on 18th October, 1926. The application that was made just before the present application was made on 2nd August 1923. 24th October 1923 was fixed for sale in execution of the previous application. On 4th October 1923, the decree-holder made an application to the Court stating that ha had given the judgment-debtor six months' time to pay up, that his application might be, for the moment, struck off as infructuous, and that the judgment-debtor might be saddled with the costs of the execution. On this application being made before the Court, it passed an order to the effect that unless and until the judgment-debtor's signature was obtained on the application, the Court would direct the decree-holder to pay his own costs of the execution, The Court fixed 9th October 1923, for the appearan...
Sheikh Mohammad Ishaq and anr. Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.894
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The facts briefly are these: A decree for sale was made so far back as in 1917. The application for execution out of which the present appeal has arisen was made on 18th of October, 1926. The application that was made just before the present application was made on 2nd of August, 1923. Twenty-fourth October, 1923 was fixed for sale in execution of the previous application. On 4th October, 1923, the decree-holder made an application to the Court stating that he had given the judgment-debtor six months time to pay up, that his application might be, for the moment, struck off as infructuous, and that the judgment-debtor might be saddled with the costs of the execution. On this application being made before the Court, it passed an order to the effect that unless and until the judgment-debtor's signature was obtained on the application, the Court would direct the decree-holder to pay his own costs of the execution. The Court fixed 9th October, 1923...
Emperor Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All588
Dalal, J 1. One Behari Lal sued Dwarka Prasad in the Munsif's Court at Etawah by suit No. 478 of 1925. The dispute was about some land within the municipality, and the defendant filed a plan of the municipality of date 1922 showing that his brother Thakur Das was in possession of a certain plot of land. The plaintiff Bihari Lal tiled another copy in which the words added were that it was land of Mt. Gobindi. The suit was dismissed in default of parties The District Magistrate naturally held an inquiry on hearing that two different copies of the same document were given to two parties by the municipality. He came to the conclusion that the copy filed by Bihari Lal was a forgery. He thereupon drew the attention of the Government, who directed him to inform the Court concerned of his suspicion. He did so by a petition dated 14th July 1927, in which he narrated the facts and informed the Court that the Local Government had directed him to draw the attention of the original civil Court to t...
Rustam Singh and ors. Vs. Bhola Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All615
1. This is an appeal from the decree and order of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun giving the plaintiff a decree in the following circumstances: The property in suit consists of certain plots in the village of Dosauli, pargana Bisauli. It used to be part of the property of one Hansraj, who died in 1875. On his death his half-share in the village was inherited by his two nephews, Phul Singh and Bhola Singh. The plots in suit, amounting in area to nearly 70 pakka bighas, were recorded by the revenue Courts as being in the possession of Mt. Subarni 'for maintenance.' It is admitted that this Mt. Subarni was not strictly speaking and according to Hindu law the widow of Hansraj, but had been living with him for a considerable time as a permanent arrangement.2. In 1881 a partition between Phul Singh and Bhola Singh was carried out by the revenue Courts and two mahals were created, the plots in suit being allotted to the two mahals in equal portions, Phul Singh died about, 1900, leaving two so...
Emperor Through the District Magistrate Vs. Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.741
Dalal, J.1. One Behari Lal sued Dwarka Prasad in the Munsif's Court at Etawah by Suit No. 478 of 1925. The dispute was about some land within the Municipality, and the defendant filed a plan of the Municipality of date 1922, showing that his brother Thakur Das was in possession of a certain plot of land. The plaintiff Bihari Lal filed another copy in which the words added were that it was land of Musammat Gobindi. The suit was dismissed in default of parties. The District Magistrate naturally held an inquiry on hearing that two different copies of the same document were given to two parties by the Municipality. He came to the conclusion that the copy filed by Bihari Lal was a forgery. He thereupon drew the attention of the Government, who directed him to inform the Court concerned of his suspicion. He did so by a petition dated 14th July, 1927, in which he narrated the facts and informed the Court that the Local Government had directed him to draw the attention of the original Civil Co...
Sumer Chand Vs. Beni Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All123
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor arising out of certain execution proceedings. Objections were taken to the execution and attachment of the decree but on the date fixed the objector was absent; his pleader stated that he had no instructions to proceed with the objections. The Court ordered that the objections be struck off for default. It is from this order that this appeal has been preferred.2. The learned advocate for the appellant argues that the proceedings were not governed by Order 9, Civil P.C., and that the dismissal for default did not come under that order so as to compel him to apply for restoration. His contention is that this is an order under Section 47 of the Code and is a decree and as such appealable. We are unable to accept this contention. Section 2(2), when defining a decree and stating that, it includes the determination of any question within Section 47, expressly states that it shall not include any order of dismissal for default. The...
Mirza Ewaz Ali Beg Vs. Babu Gendan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: 111Ind.Cas.738
Dalal, J.1 .The question at issue is how much money a subsequent mortgagee, Ewaz Ali Beg, plaintiff, should pay to a prior mortgagee, Gendan Lal, successor-in-interest of Dwarka Prasad. The suit for sale was brought by Ewaz Ali Beg, and Gendan Lal was made a party (defendant) as prior mortgagee. The circumstances of the prior mortgage have to be narrated:--The prior mortgage was made in favour of Dwarka Prasad on 23rd August, 1903, and he obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 3rd March, 1916, and a final decree on 13th January, 1917. The plaintiff was no party to these proceedings. In process subsequent to the final decree Gendan Lal himself purchased the property on 31st October, 1917. and obtained possession on 31st January, 1918. The lower Appellate Court has allowed Gendau Lal an amount made up of the principal amount of his bond with simple interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of the bond to 31st January, 1918. the date of his taking possession of the property. Wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »