Allahabad Court December 1929 Judgments
Bhagirathi Dubey Vs. Rajkishore Dubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All354; 122Ind.Cas.887
Sen, J.1. One Raj Kishore Dubey owned certain zemindari property in mauzas Rampur and Aranwan Gulzar, pargana Kauna in the district of Azamgarh. On 1st July 1925, he transferred the property in suit with possession to one Katwaru who figures in this action as defendant 8. The document ostensibly amounted to a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 800. Bhagirathi Dube, plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for pre-emption on the allegation that the transaction in question was really an out and out sale but it was disguised with the outer trappings of a usufructuary mortgage.2. The suit was resisted both by Raj Kishore Dube, the transferrer, and Katwaru, the transferee both of whom pleaded that the transaction was a usufructuary mortgage and the real consideration was Rs. 800 as set out in the document and not Rs. 200 as alleged by the plaintiff.3. The 10th December 1925, was the date fixed for the final hearing of the case. Matters, however, took a dramatic turn, on 8th December 1925 when Raj K...
Tag this Judgment!Adit NaraIn Singh Vs. Mahabir Prasad Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All398
1. These are three connected Letters Patent appeals each brought by a defendant against decrees of a learned single Judge of this Court confirming the decrees of the lower appellate Court for the ejectment of the defendants. The three suits were brought by the plaintiffs as fixed-rate tenants. It was argued in the first place that the plaintiffs were not fixed-rate tenants. The plaintiffs were persons who were recorded in the 1911 settlement as fixed-rate tenants of land in pargana Kaswar Raja, district Benares. Under U.P. Act 4 of 1915, Section 4(4) there is a definition as follows:A fixed-rate tenant means a tenant who has been recorded as a fixed-rate tenant in the Record-of-rights....2. The rest of the definition does not concern the plaintiffs, as they have been recorded as fixed-rate tenants in the Re-cord-of-Rights. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that this definition merely raised a legal presumption that the plaintiffs were fixed-rate tenants. We conside...
Tag this Judgment!Jokhu Bhunja Vs. Sitla Baksh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All416; 122Ind.Cas.411
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage evidenced by a deed dated 19th June 1901, executed by one Fateh Bahadur Singh in favour of Jokhu, the defendant-appellant, under which a two-anna share of village Hardua was mortgaged with possession for a sum of Rs. 900. The usufruct of the mortgaged property is to be set off against the interest. By a subsequent deed, dated 16th October 1903, the mortgagor borrowed a further sum of Rs. 525 and hypothecated the property already mortgaged agreeing to pay interest at the rate of one rupee per cent per mensem.2. It is not disputed that the plaintiff respondents have become the owners of half of the equity of redemption and are entitled to redeem to that extent the integrity of the mortgage having been put an end to in consequence of certain interests acquired by the mortgagee. The principal question which calls for a decision in appeal is whether the defendant-appellant is entitled to recove...
Tag this Judgment!Khub Chand Vs. Lachman Das-decree Holder
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All415; 122Ind.Cas.758
1. This is a letters patent appeal brought by one Khub Chand whose position is somewhat obscure. There was a suit brought by Mool Chand against Lachhman Das and Achru Lal in which Mool Chand obtained a decree for possession of certain property from the lower Courts and obtained possession in execution of that decree. Ultimately his decree was set aside by the High Court in second appeal on the grounds that a transfer which he had made in 1895 to one Bansidhar was made to defraud his creditors and on account of this transfer Mool Chand was not entitled to bring a suit. During the pendency of this suit, which was instituted on 3rd July 1919, Mool Chand the plaintiff made a deed of sale of the property in dispute to Khub Chand, the appellant before us, on 26th November 1919. On 2nd December 1919 the heirs of Bansidhar, the transferee from Mool Chand by the fraudulent sale deed, executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of Khub Chand. An application was made without any reference to any ...
Tag this Judgment!Gobardhan Das Vs. Dau Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1931All31
Dalal, J.1. A revenue Court decree was passed on 10th February 1915. The decree-holder applied for execution admittedly within time by reason of his previous application of 21st March 1923 for the arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. There was no arrest. On 29th August 1923, the parties applied to the execution Court to register an agreement between them that the judgment-debtor would pay the decretal amount by certain instalments payable on certain dates. For the purposes of the present case the only date worth noting is that of 15th January 1928 when the judgment-debtor agreed to pay the balance. The balance not having been paid on that date the decree-holder applied on 16th January 1928 for recovery of the balance by attachment of property. On that date the application was beyond 12 years from the date of the decree and came within the bar of Section 48, Civil P. C, from the date of the decree sought to be executed unless that bar was escaped by the date of a su...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Baksh Vs. Shibba
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.26
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal brought by the defendant against a decree of a learned Judge of this Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and decreeing possession to the plaintiff of certain property as nearest reversioner of one Hardeo deceased. The property was held by the widow of Hardeo Musammat Shibbo and she died shortly before the suit was brought. The question at issue is whether the plaintiff has proved that he, Shibba, is the nearest reversioner of the deceased Hardeo. The plaintiff set up a pedigree in his plaint in which he claimed to be the nearest reversioner through his grandfather, a name which is read as Zukki. Subsequently the plaintiff alleged that it should be read as Zulfi. The plaintiff produced oral and documentary evidence in support of this claim and the lower Appellate Court did not believe the oral evidence. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, was a settlement entry as follows:Zemindar Mangat of Zulfi of Khase biradarzad Sunda, deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Bansi Lal Vs. Musammat Munder
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.410
1. This is an appeal by the defendant arising oat of a suit instituted by Musammat Mundarya for a declaration that she as heir of her husband, Shukru, was the owner in possession of a house bearing No. 62 situate in Mohalla Ahmad-ganj in the City of Allahabad.2. One Sheo Din died leaving a widow Musammat Taiya and two sons Kallu and Shukru. Musammat Mundarya is the widow of Shukru, the latter having died about the year 1920 Bansi Lal defendant No. 1 is the son of Kallu. On the 8th of February, 1923, Bansi Lal mortgaged a house in dispute to defendant No. 2 who, by a strange coincidence is also named Bansi Lal.3. The suit was opposed upon the ground that Bansi Lal and Shukru were members of a joint Hindu family on the date of Shukru's death and that the house passed to Bausi Lal defendant No. 1 by rule of survivorship and that Musammat Muadarya the widow of Shukru had no title to the house. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Basant Rai Takhat Singh of Agra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All288
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax at the instance of Messrs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh of Agra.2. It appears that the assessees are members of a Hindu joint family and are assessed as such. They carried on different kinds of business, but for the present, they have got some house property and they hold a lease from the Cantonment. The leased property consists mostly of vacant land let out to the assessees for one year. One of the conditions of the lease is that no permanent structure shall be erected on the land leased and the structure that is erected should be removable within 12 hours. What the assessees do is to let out the sites, with or without any shelter constructed by themselves over them, to different persons and realise ground rents from the sub-lessees. The Income-tax Officer of Agra assessed the income from the property of the assessees which consisted of various buildings in various parts of Agra and he also considered the income from the l...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Tewari Vs. Mohammad Idris and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All312; 122Ind.Cas.595
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The defendants had acquired under a deed of gift a share in the same mahal but in another khata khewat. The plaintiff is a cosharer with the vendor in the same khata khewat in which the property sold is situated. The Courts below have held that a khata khewat cannot be taken to be a subdivision of a mahal within the meaning of Section 12, Clause 2, Pre-emption Act. In our opinion they are wrong. The khewat shows that there are separate khatas assigned to separate groups of co-sharers which have specific areas fixed and on which Government revenue is separately assessed. There cannot be the least doubt that they are smaller sub-divisions of the same mahal. The plaintiff being a co-sharer in a smaller subdivision has undoubtedly preference over the defendants. We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court remand the case to that Court under Order 41, Rule 23 for the determi...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Tewari Vs. Shah Mohammad AmIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All337
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The principal defence raised by the vendee was that the purchase had been for the purpose of a manufacturing industry. The Court below held against the defendant and decreed the claim. On appeal the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit in its entirety.2. There was an express recital in the sale deed as to the purpose for which the property was being acquired. The lower appellate Court differing from the Court of first instance held that the omission of any recitals in the sale deed was not a fatal defect. In our opinion this view was correct. It is open to the vendee to show by other evidence, even though there may not be any such recital, what the real purpose of the purchase was, though of course an omission of such a purpose from the sale deed may be a strong piece of evidence against him.3. The learned Judge does appear to have found that the purpose of the purchase was 'to start the sugar in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »