Allahabad Court February 1929 Judgments
Mohammad Raza Ali Khan Vs. Mohammud Israr Hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All459; 121Ind.Cas.218
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption under the Mahomedan law. The sale took place on 13th November 1923, at Shahjahanpur. The plaintiff who owns the adjoining land was at that time employed in the Bhopal State. His son was living at Shahjahanpur and apparently did not convey any information to his father till March following when he went to Bhopal personally. The plaintiff made the first demand at Bhopal as soon as he received the information from his son. He also deputed his son to go to Shahjahanpur to make the second demand. The second demand was made by the son at Shahjahanpur later. The defendant contested the claim on the ground that no demand had in fact or in law been made as were required by the Mahomedan law. The Courts below have decreed the suit holding that the demands were duly made.2. So far as the finding of the lower appellate Court is a finding of fact it must be accepted. We must therefore assume that the plaintiff when he ...
Tag this Judgment!Angan Lal and ors. Vs. Saran Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All503; 121Ind.Cas.221
1. One Jagan Prasad, for himself and as the natural guardian of his three sons, two of whom are among the appellants, executed a mortgage bond for Rs. 10,000 in favour of the ancestors of the respondents to this appeal on 17th July 1915. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought to enforce that mortgage One of the sons of Jagan Prasad is dead and is represented in this litigation by his wife, Mt. Manbhari, one of the three appellants.2. Several pleas were taken in defence, but only three of these are pressed before us, and, therefore, need be noticed. The first plea was that the parties agreed that a certain mortgage transaction should be entered into by the parties in satisfaction of not only the bond in suit but also of another mortgage bond, and that being the case, the present suit was not maintainable. The second plea was that there was effected, between the father and the sons a partition in 1911, and, therefore, the present suit for the sale of properties, which f...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Datt Pandey Vs. Bandhu Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All394
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent for damages. The plaintiff is mortgagee under a deed dated 8th March 1916 wherein the mortgagor purported to give with possession two properties, one an occupancy tenancy and the other a grove. He asked damages because his peaceful occupation of the grove has been interfered with by his mortgagor.2. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it was unlawful for the mortgagor to agree to the mortgagee having possession of his occupancy holding as security for the land. It may be mentioned that the amount advanced was secured by the mortgage of both properties and was not divided so as to show what amount was secured by possession of one property and what by possession of the other property.3. The correctness of the decision of the lower Courts has been contested in this appeal on various grounds. One ground is that the mortgage as a whole can o...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Lala Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All415
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant on a mortgage dated 7th November 1910 executed by one Ganga Ram to Mt. Lachho and Ram Narain. The successors-in-interest of the mortgagor are defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 13 and 18 are said to be transferees of the mortgagee Ram Narain. The plaintiff sues as the successor-in-interest of Mt. Lachho. The suit was resisted only by defendants 13 and 14 as successor-in-interest of Ram Narain, the co-mortgages of Mt. Lachho.2. The plaintiff based his claim to represent Mt. Lachho on the following facts. He produced an award dated 1st August 1912 which appears to have awarded the interest of Mt. Lachho in this deed to one Anrudh Prasad. He says that when Anrudh Prasad died, his interest devolved on his widow Mt. Sheorani and his adopted son Ambika Prasad. They sold him that interest by a deed dated 22nd October 1925. As noted above, the only persons to resist this suit were the successors-in-interest o...
Tag this Judgment!Balmakund Vs. Nanak Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All433; 117Ind.Cas.828
1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C, praying for the removal of the defendant Balmakund, from his office as trustee of a public religious and charitable trust, and for certain subsidiary reliefs.2. The author of the trust was one Mt. Parbati the widow of P. Nand Kishore Deputy Collector. She built a thakurdwara, a shivalaya and a tank for perpetuating the name of her deceased husband and for the public good. By a deed of waqf dated 17th September 1903 Mt. Parbati, with the consent of the next reversioner, P. Gopeshwar Datt, her deceased husband's brother, dedicated about 1/3rd of her zamindari property bringing in an income of about Rs. 3,000 a year for the support of the temple and for feeding faqirs and other poor persons and for celebrating fairs to be held on the Janam Ashthami and Shiv Ratri and for water booths and similar public purposes of a religious or charitable nature. The property was dedicated to Shri Krishnaji. P. Balmakund, the defendant who ...
Tag this Judgment!Basira Bibi Vs. Sheikh Ata Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All453; 118Ind.Cas.170
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only ground on which the suit has been dismissed is that the plaintiff refused to make the purchase before the sale-deed. The evidence led by the defendant indicated the refusals on two occasions. A month prior to the sale deed it was stated that the vendee had declined to make the purchase unless the vendor's sister, the present plaintiff, agreed that she would not pre-empt the property. The parties went to the village where the plaintiff is stated to have said that she would not pre-empt the property and that it might be sold to the vendee. The evidence does not go on to show fully that at that time the exact extent of the vendor's share or the exact price at which the transaction was settled had been disclosed to the lady. The other occasion was when the sale-deed was registered. She was brought in person to the registration office. She attested the sale-deed and put her thumb mark on it. It is, h...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Dayal and ors. Vs. Ambika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All545
1. We have come to the conclusion that we ought to issue notice in this case. The matter is of an exceptional character, and not free from difficulty; and we think it, therefore, desirable for the benefit of the parties to state broadly our grounds for issuing notice.2. The application is made to this Bench, one of the Judges constituting which was a member of the Bench which decided the first appeal, the judgment in which it is now sought to review. The application is made on behalf of the plaintiffs to review a judgment of this Court, dismissing the first appeal so long ago as 17th June 1921. The main issue in both the Courts, which resulted in concurrent findings, was whether one Bhawani Prasad an ancestor of the defendants had survived a female ancestor, Sitala Kunwar, who admittedly died in 1906.3. The ground upon which the application is made is the recent discovery, that is to say five years after the decision, of an alleged deed of gift, made by the father of the said Bhawani P...
Tag this Judgment!Har Gobind and anr. Vs. Gitam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All346
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises cut of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants for possession of a certain plot of land. The suit was against five defendants. Defendants 1-3 did not contest the suit. There has been a previous suit for possession of exactly the same plot against defendants 1 to 3 decided on 12th December 1918. That suit was No. 508 of 1918. At the time when that suit was decided defendants 4 and 5 of the present suit were minors. They are the brothers of Bahore Singh and Zalim Singh defendants 2 and 3 and the nephews of Sitaram defendant 1 all of which 3 defendants were parties in the former suit.2. The trial Court gave a decree holding that the plaintiff's claim was proved under the rule of res judicata. The lower appellate Court rejected this finding on the ground that defendants 4 and 5 were minors, and no parties to the former suit.3. In this appeal it is contended that defendants 1-3 in the former suit were litigating bona fide not...
Tag this Judgment!Kundal Lal and ors. Vs. Raj Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All513; 121Ind.Cas.243
Sulaiman, J.1. First Appeal No. 444 of 1925 and First Appeal No. 196 of 1926 are connected, and are cross appeals by defendants and plaintiffs respectively arising out of the same suit 1929 A/65 & 66 for recovery of possession of the plaintiffs' share of the property and for the avoidance of a deed of relinquishment, dated 19th February 1924, executed by the plaintiffs' father. The plaintiffs are the sons of Ram Lal who was one of the sons of Nand Kishore. In 1901. Nand Kishore had two sons, Chaturbhoj and Ram Lal forming members of his joint family and he had a third wife Mt. Chandan Kuar, who was not the mother of either of the sons. Chaturbhoj instituted a suit for the partition of the family property in 1901 against his father and brother and at a subsequent stage, his stepmother, Mt. Chandan Kuar was also impleaded. The share of Chaturbhoj thus became one-fourth of the entire property. At that time Ram Lal was a minor and was impleaded under the guardianship of his father Nand Kis...
Tag this Judgment!Jwala Nath Vs. Chhanga Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All553a; 118Ind.Cas.383
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under the following circumstances: Ram Das, defendant 3, father of the plaintiff-appellant who is a minor aged 9 years, was sued on foot of a mortgage by defendants 1 and 2, Chhanga Mal and Manga Mal. They obtained a decree for sale on the mortgage but had not impleaded Jwala Nath, the present plaintiff. The money due on the mortgage not having been paid by Ram Das an application for execution of the decree was filed by the two defendants and the property in suit was advertised for sale in execution of the decree in suit No. 281 of 1924. It is upon this action of the defendants 1 and 2, namely, applying to the Court to enforce their decree that the present plaintiff, a minor aged 9, under the guardianship of Mt. Anaro, has filed this suit for a declaration that half of the house mortgaged by Ram Das, being the plaintiff's share, is not liable to be sold in execution of the decree. The plaintiff pleaded that he not having been impleaded in the previous su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »