Allahabad Court December 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.
Ram Brich Pandey Vs. Gopal Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All518
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal brought by Ram Brich Pandey, plaintiff, against a decree of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff which had been decreed by the lower appellate Court. The decree granted by the lower appellate Court was for giving possession to the plaintiff of one-half of certain occupancy plots which had originally formed the holding of Sheo Bhajan. It is found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that the defendant is in possession of this half of this occupancy holding.2. The claim of the plaintiff to possession of the half of the occupancy holding in possession of the defendant is based on the argument that plaintiff alone was entitled to succeed to the whole of the occupancy holding of Sheo Bhajan on his death, because plaintiff was a nearer collateral than defendant. But under Section 22, Act 2 of 1901, a collateral who did not share in cultivation with the deceased as occupancy tenant is not entitled to succeed, The fin...
Dwarka Prasad Vs. Badri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All220a
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff for joint possession of plot 362/1 and for damage's. The plot in question is admittedly the joint holding of the parties and the plaintiff owns a one-third share therein. In the year 1925 the defendants having dispossessed the plaintiff from plot 362 along with certain other properties, a suit for possession was instituted against the defendants. This suit was decreed by the trial Court on 20th February 1925 and the decree was affirmed on appeal on 2nd December 1925. Formal delivery of possession was made on 5th May 1926. In July 1926 the defendants are alleged to have successfully obstructed the plaintiff from cultivating the land; hence the suit.2. The suit was contested by Lala Badri Lal defendant 1. He pleaded that he had not obstructed or dispossessed the plaintiff from the land in dispute and that no cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff.3. The Court of first instance repelled this plea and granted the plaintiff a decree for joi...
Ram Dayal Vs. Asghar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All289
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff which arises out of a suit for possession of plot 1028 having an area of 5 bighas 12 biswas pukhta situate in village Sheikhpur. One Mt. Rafatunnissa was the owner of certain zamindari properties including the plot in dispute. On 19th July 1908, she executed a simple mortgage of the entire properties in favour of the plaintiff appellant. This mortgage was put into suit in 1920. During the pendency of the suit, the original mortgagor having died, the name of her son and heir Ishtiaq Ahmad was substituted in his place. A preliminary decree was passed in due course of law. After the passing of the preliminary decree, Ishtiaq Ahmad, on 25th February 1924, executed a lease of the plot in dispute in favour of Asghar Khan defendant-respondent for a term of five years. Plaintiff applied for a final decree and impleaded Asghar Khan, the lessee in the said proceedings. A final decree was passed against the mortgagors' representatives on 25th February ...
Chhatarmal and ors. Vs. Jugul Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All313
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decree of a learned Judge of this Court granting the plaintiffs an injunction against the defendants from interfering with the water channel which runs from the well of the plaintiffs, across two plots 1296/1 and 1296/3 which belong to the defendants, and from which water irrigates the fields of the plaintiffs. Originally all these fields and the well were joint property, and there was a partition in 1907 in which the well was allotted to the plaintiffs and the intervening fields to the defendants, and then come certain fields allotted to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed in the plaint that it was necessary for them to irrigate their fields from this well, and an issue was framed by the trial Court (issue 2):Have plaintiffs been enjoying a right of easement to flow water through the channel and did defendants obstruct them from using it? Were the plots in question irrigated through that channel?2. On this issue the trial Court found in favour ...
Shahzad Singh Vs. Bachoo Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All352
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Pfatent Appeal brought by the defendants. The facts as found are that an occupancy tenant has made a usufructuary mortgage of a single plot 906 of his occupancy holding in the year 1889 when such a mortgage was held to be legal by this Court in the Pull Bench case of Khiali Ram v. Nathu Lal [1893] 15 All. 219. The zamindar sued the tenant Faqir for arrears of rent and obtained a decree for Rs. 4-2-0 arrears, under Section 57(a) Act 2 of 1901, in the year 1924. To this suit the present appellants were not parties, and under Act 2 of 1901 it is not necessary for the landholder to make the psresent appellants parties, and the present appellants were subtenants under that Act. An application was made under Section 59 of that Act by the landholder to eject the tenant and under Section 71(1) of that Act a sublessee is no longer entitled to remain in possession. The defendants, however, resisted the landholder in obtaining possession and the landholder brought t...
Sheo Shankar and ors. Vs. Bhup Singh and anr..
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All413a
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of two plots namely, 170 and 176. situate in mauza Asadpur in the district of Etawah. On 16th August 1907 the plaintiffs executed a simple mortgage of 69 bighas and 6 biswas in favour of Joti Prasad for Rs. 1,000 and agreed to pay Rs. 50 annually by way of interest. In order to secure the payment of interest to the mortgagee, the plaintiffs transferred the plots in dispute to the possession of the mortgagee upon the understanding that the mortgagee was to appropriate the usufruct in lieu of interest to the extent of Rs. 45, and that the mortgagor was to pay Rs. 5 in cash to the mortgagee. For certain length of time, the plaintiffs cultivated the plots themselves, and continued to pay rent to the mortgagee. Later on they gave up possession of the two plots and authorized the mortgagee either to cultivate these two plots or to let them out to the tenants. In 1917, or thereabout the mortgagee le...
Maqbul Ahmad and ors. Vs. Brijdeo Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All529
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession by avoidance of a sale deed of 1913. This deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 169 by one Mt. Poona in order to pay off a prior mortgage dated 4th December 1909 executed by her in favour of Mendai, the defendant's father. The property transferred was what had been inherited by her from her mother. It was therefore a Hindu woman's limited estate in her possession, and no valid transfer could have been made without legal necessity. The recital in the earlier mortgage deed as shown by a certified copy was to the effect that the money had been borrowed for barkhi, that is the first annual death ceremony of her mother, Mt. Ram Kali. There was also oral evidence to the same effect. The present plaintiffs have after the death of Mt. Poona purchased this very property, viz., one pie share from her sons who became the heirs to the estate.2. The lower appellate Court has distinctly found that the sale deed...
Bhageshwari Singh Vs. Hingu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All218
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for ejectment of the defendants from a house situate in Kachhwa Bazar, taluqa Majhwa, district Mirzapur.2. The plaintiff alleged that one Sondat was the last male holder of his property. He died, leaving a widow, Mt. Punia, a daughter, Mt. Tulshi, and three grandsons, namely, Sat Narayan, Manhgu and Ram Narayan. The property vested in Mt. Punia with the limited estate of a Hindu widow. She executed a deed of gift in favour of one of her grandsons, Sat Narayan. Sat Narayan, in conjunction with two of his brothers, executed a sale deed of the house in favour of the plaintiff appellant on 16th March 1923. Mt. Punia died six or seven years before the suit. About two years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff's vendors are alleged to have let out the house to the defendants as their tenants. The usual notice was served on the defendants to vacate the house. They refused to vacate it. Hence the suit.3. The suit was resisted upon va...
Ali Raja Khan Vs. Muhammad Zafar Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All311
1. These are two Letters Patent appeals against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeals of the defendants. The plaintiffs obtained decrees for ejectment of the defendants in the revenue Courts under Sections 58 and 34, Act 2 of 1901. The facts in S.A. No. 525 of 1927 are that in 1897 the plaintiffs mortgaged four sir plots to the defendants with possession and the defendants have been in possession of these four sir plots ever since. In 1917 there was an auction sale of a two anna share held by the mortgagors of the plots and in the sale proclamation it was specified that it was to be sold subject to the usufructuary mortgage of these four plots in favour of the defendants. At the auction sale the defendants bought this share and took possession on 2nd August 1921. Subsequently, the plaintiffs claimed ex proprietary rights and obtained a final order of the revenue Court in appeal dated 31st October 1924 to the effect that plaintiffs were the ex-propr...
Raghunath Das and ors. Vs. Shah Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All369; 129Ind.Cas.371
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal by all the defendants in the original suit except the heirs of defendant 4. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of certain property, and further for a declaration that the defendants had no rights at all in the property, though it happened that their names were fictitiously entered in the revenue papers. The case involves one of those difucult questions, which so often arise where there are a number of defendants and plaintiffs and one or other of them has died during the pendency of the suit and the hairs have not been brought on the record.2. In the present case defendant 4 died during the pendency of the suit, and for the purpose of facilitating the decision of the cross-objections, which have been taken in the present appeal we may state immediately what occurred after the death of defendant 4, Upon learning of the death of defendant 4, the plaintiff applied to have his heirs brought upon the record, but he did not make h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »