Allahabad Court January 1929 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.
Tamizan Vs. Nanhey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All334; 117Ind.Cas.111
Dalal, J.1. The name of respondent 9 shall be removed from the record. Reference should be made to the order passed by another learned Judge on 27th June 1927 when admitting the appeal. The plaintiff who was the heir of one Channu Khan was entitled to seven siham property on his death and her brother Farid Khan only to fourteen. Mutation was made accordingly on the death of Channu Khan, but in 1319 Fasli, that is, in 1912, an alteration was specifically made in the knewat and the name of Mt. Tamizan was recorded against one siham and of Farid Khan against 20. When Farid Khan died the distribution of his property was made on the basis of his owning 20 sihams plus two sihams inherited from his mother. His daughter inherited a correspondingly large share, and Munnu Lal, defendant is purchaser of the share of the daughter. There has also been an auction sale of the assets of Farid Khan in the hands of his two sisters. That sale also took place on the basis of Farid Khan owning 22 siham pro...
Zalim Singh and anr. Vs. Raghunandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All379
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The first Court dismissed the claim, but on appeal the lower appellate Court has decreed it, holding that there is no right of pre-emption in the mahal in which the property is situated. There are three mahals, in this village. Wajib-u-arzes for all the three mahals have been produced and only two record a right of pre-emption, and the third mahal in which the property sold is situated does not record any right of pre-emption at all. It only states that it is owned by a single proprietor.2. It is quite clear that the Act being applicable to the village in question, Section 3 allows the right of pre-emption only in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Under Section 5 a right of preemption is to be deemed to exist only in mahals or villages in respect of which any wajib-ul-arz prepared prior to the commencement of the Act records a custom, contract or declaration. No wajib-ul-arz prepared of the mahal in questio...
Mohammad Daud Khan Vs. Jia Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.852
Dalal, J.1. The view of Civil Courts as to the examination of evidence in cases where damages are wanted for malicious prosecutions will have to be revised after the judgment of their Lordships in the case of Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah 95 Ind. Cas. 329 : 24 A.L.J. 453 : 3 O.W.N. 499 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 46 : 43 C.L.J. 521 : 28 Bom. L.R. 921 : (1926) M.W.N. 482 : 51 M.L.J. 42 : 30 C.W.N. 866 : 29 O.C. 163 : 7 P.L. T: 591 : 1 Luck. 215 (P.C.). The common impression was that when a plaintiff came to Court after acquittal in the Criminal Court, he had to prove his innocence positively before he would be entitled to claim damages. The proof of want of reasonable and probable cause was held to be tantamount to proof of innocence. Their Lordships pointed out that what the plaintiff was called upon to prove was that he was prosecuted by the defendant and that the prosecution ended in his acquittal. He was not called upon to prove that he was innocent of the charge. He had to prove that the pr...
Mt. Jahandar Begam and anr. Vs. Chinta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All232
Dalal, J.1. The opinion of the lower appellate Court is partly wrong but on the finding of fact of fraud this appeal cannot succeed. The plaintiff is a grove-holder and sued for such declaration with respect to the plot in suit and in the alternative for possession. It happened that for arrears of rent the defendants zamindars had taken action against the plaintiff to eject him under Section 57(a), Tenancy Act of 1901. In pursuance of these proceedings the plaintiff was ejected. The lower appellate Court held: (1) that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to eject the plaintiff because the property in suit was a grove and not tenancy land and (2) that the decree was obtained by the defendants through fraud practised on the plaintiff and that therefore the decree was not binding on the plaintiff.2. The first finding is not correct. It was open to the revenue Court to hold that the plaintiff was an agricultural tenant and not a grove-holder and there would be no want of jurisdiction if ...
BadruddIn and ors. Vs. Tej Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All233
1. This appeal and appeal No. 1584 of 1925 as also the appeals Nos. 1878 and 1879 of 1924 were connected for the purposes of arguments, although the two sets of appeals are, in one sense, independent. We had heard the last-mentioned two appeals, viz., Nos. 1878 and 1879 of 1924 and delivered a short judgment, which, however, had neither been signed nor sealed. On hearing appeals Nos. 1583 and 1584, we considered it desirable that the respondents' counsel in the appeals Nos. 1878 and 1879 of 1924 should be reheard and we reheard him accordingly. We are now in a position to decide all the four appeals on the same broad principle.2. It appears that the river Bhakra flows between several villages, the village of Jatpura being on one side of the river. The defendants in each of the several suits out of which these appeals have arisen are the zamindars of the village of Jatpura. By suit No. 103 of 1923 the zamindars of village Hurhari, by suit No. 118 of 1923 the zamindars of mauza Mirnagar,...
Fateh Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All320
Dalal, J.1. This is an application for bail of one Fateh Singh against whom an investigation is being made by the police on a charge under Section 304, I.P.C., punishable with transportation for life. The Magistrate guided as he was by the provisions of Section 497, Criminal P.C., expressed his inability to grant bail in such a case as there appeared to be reasonable grounds for believing that Fateh Singh was guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, had wide powers under Section 498, Criminal P.C., and has not considered the petition of appeal with care. It is represented that Fateh Singh is required to instruct his counsel, that members of two parties are being prosecuted, and that a member of the other party is released on bail and that, therefore, the other party will have a better chance of their case being properly represented in Court. It is true that against the other party there is no charge under Section 304, I.P.C. At the same time these reasons must weigh with a Court, and if th...
Mt. Akram-un-nissa and ors. Vs. Mt. Mustafa-un-nissa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All238
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that certain zamindari property and a house belonged to the plaintiff, Mt. Mustafa-un-nissa, and are not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree obtained by the contesting defendants against Shaukat Ali, the plaintiff's husband. Shaukat Ali had two wives, namely, Qutub-un-nissa, the first wife, and Mustafa-un-nissa, the plaintiff, the second wife. Shaukat Ali had practically no property of his own and was maintained by his father, Qudrat Ali. On 15th April 1924 Qudrat Ali died and the bulk of his property passed to Shaukat Ali by inheritance. The first wife, Qutub-un-nissa, had died some time before Shaukat Ali inherited the property, and soon after Qudrat Ali's death the heirs of Mt. Qutub-un-nissa demanded her dower debt from Shaukat Ali. They filed a suit on 3rd July 1924 claiming Rs. 23,000 as the dower debt and obtained a decree against Shaukat Ali for Rs. 18,750 on 17th September 1924. The decree-holder sought t...
Mt. Maharani and anr. Vs. Debi Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All253
Dalal, J.1. The learned Judge of the lower Court has stated the law correctly. If there has been an amendment of a decree incapable of execution, the period shall run from the date of the amendment, otherwise it must date back to the date of the original decree. The view taken of the circumstances of this case by the learned Judge is, however, perverse in my opinion. It is obvious that the decree-holder has taken advantage of a slight mistake in orthography, and really did not consider the decree incapable of execution. First of all, he tried subsequent to the decree being time barred to make out that Rs. 10 had been paid by the judgment-debtor within time. The decree was passed on 6th January 1925, and on 3rd April 1928 he applied to the Court certifying a payment of Rs. 10 within the period of limitation. This application was contested and dismissed. No question then was raised of the previous decree as it existed being incapable of execution. Then he clearly took advantage of Jwala ...
Malik Iftikhar Wali Khan Vs. Sarwari Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All369
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of dower debt of one Mt. Shikoh Ara Begam alias Sajjan Begam, who was the wife of Malik Iftikhar Wali Khan, the appellant.2. Mt. Shikoh Ara Begam died on 6th November 1922, and the plaintiff in her own right and as purchaser of the share of her husband of the amount due for dower from defendant 1, has instituted this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 62,687-8-0. It is admitted by the defendant that the dower debt was fixed at 1,25,000 and 25 sovereigns.3. The defence put forward by the appellant was that the plaintiff and her husband caused the marriage of the defendant to be performed by practising fraud, that the fraud was that Shikoh Ara Begam was suffering from phthysis and unable to move about on account of illness. The marriage admittedly took place on 26th August 1921. The 'rukhsat' ceremony took place on 26th March 1921. The case of the defendant is, as set out in his written statement para. 11, that when Shikoh Ara Begam w...
Lalta Prasad Vs. Chunni Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All385
1. In this case part of the resumed muafi land comprised in one khewat and assessed to Government revenue has been sold. The plaintiff is a cosharer in this very khewat. An earlier wajib-ul-arz prepared for the village records a custom of pre-emption, but there is also a recital in it to the effect that the cosharers of the village have no concern with the resumed muafi. The defendants are strangers. The Court of first instance decreed the claim for pre-emption, but on appeal the District Judge has dismissed it, holding that having regard to the recital in the wajib-ul-arz there is no right of pre-emption in muafi lands. We are unable to concur in this view. When a right of preemption is recorded in a wajib-ul-arz of the mahal, a right must be deemed to exist, in view of the provisions of Section 5, of the Act. The question as to what persons are entitled to exercise this right is to be determined by reference to Section 12 of the Act and not to the recitals in the wajib-ul-arz. Under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »