Allahabad Court March 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.
Fazal Ahmad Vs. R.B.S. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All465
Niamatullah, J.1. I regret I am unable to agree with my learned colleague on one of the questions, arising in this appeal, which goes to the very root of the matter in controversy. I am of opinion that the deed of waqf, dated 23rd June 1913, executed by Mt. Rahim Bibi does not affect the one-third share of villages Bhitaura Kalan and Amkhera, inherited by her on the death of her son, Manzur Ahmad who was admittedly the owner of the aforesaid villages. My learned colleague has so lucidly stated all the facts from which the proposition, on which we differ, emerges, that it would be needless repetition to recapitulate them in detail except in so far as is necessary to explain my views on that question. It is common ground that Manzur Ahmed executed a sale-deed, on 29th August 1912, only three days before his death, conveying the two villages to his mother, Mt. Rahim Bibi, in lieu of Rs. 2,00,000 of which a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid at the time of the registration of the deed and the rema...
Ejaz Ahmad and ors. Vs. Saghir Bano and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All287; 118Ind.Cas.175
Banerji, J.1. The four appellants were defendants in a suit for partition. The property in which the plaintiffs claim a share belonged to one Hafiz Niaz Ahmad. He left behind several heirs and the plaintiffs claim specified shares against the other heirs of Niaz Ahmad. The defence of the appellants and the other defendants was that the house in question was given to Mt. Wilaiti Begam by Hafiz Niaz Ahmad in lieu of her dower debt and the plaintiffs have no right to the house, and in no case can they have their share apportioned without payment of the proportionate share of the debt. The defendants averred that Mt. Wilaiti Begam's dower was Rs. 40,000 but the plaintiffs say that it was Rs. 1,000.2. In the year 1910 one of the heirs of Niaz Ahmad transferred his share and the transferee instituted a suit for partition of that share. In that case some heirs supported the claim of the transferee but the present plaintiff and the appellants pleaded that Mt. Wilaiti Begam's dower was Rs. 40,0...
Gomti Singh Vs. Anari Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All492; 118Ind.Cas.152
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by Mt. Anari Kuar, wife of Basdeo Singh, against him and his transferees for the cancellation of a deed of gift dated 23rd April 1925. According to the findings of fact of the District Judge, which we must now accept as final, it appears that Basdeo Singh married two wives and the usual quarrels ensued between his wives. The matter came to a head in 1924 and Basdeo Singh executed a document called a tamliknama on the 25th August 1924 under which he made himself and his two wives Mt. Parbati Kuar and Mt. Anari joint owners of his property on the following terms:(1) The deed was to come into force immediately.(2) Basdeo Singh gave his property to his two wives who along with Basdeo Singh were to be the owners in possession of the property and would remain so.(3) Basdeo Singh would get the names of his wives entered in the revenue papers along with his own name and if he failed to do so his wives would have a right to get their...
Secy. of State Vs. Har Charan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All417; 117Ind.Cas.622
Kendall, J.1. This is an application under Section 25., Small Cause Courts Act, for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Bareilly, directing the attachment of deposits amounting to Rs. 450 in the execution of a decree against one Gulzari Lal. The application, however, is made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Gulzari Lal was a clerk in the Collector's office in Pilibhit, and he was a subscriber to the General Provident Fund. He has now retired. A decree was obtained against him by one Har Charan Das in the Small Cause Court of Bareilly and it is in the execution of this decree that the present question has arisen. The Judge has complied with the decree-holder's application to attach money lying to the credit of Gulzari Lal in the General Provident Fund, and an objection was made by the Pay and Accounts Officer, U.P. that the deposit was not liable to attachment. That objection has, however, been overruled by the Court below.2. It has been pointed out by ...
Jadunandan Singh Vs. Bechan Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All442
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellant. The plaintiffs are admittedly tenants of a holding and the defendant, the zamindar. The defendant wanted to get the boundary of the holding defined, and applied apparently under Section 41, Land Revenue Act. The Collector (or officer acting as Collector) heard the parties and fixed the boundary, and had stones put up to mark it. The present case is brought by the plaintiffs on the ground that measurements were wrongly made by the revenue officials, and consequently the Collector fixed the wrong boundary and caused the loss of three biswas to the plaintiffs. This suit was brought in the Munsif's Court. Strange to say the defendant zamindar did not raise plea of want of jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court in either the trial Court or the lower appellate Court. Both those Courts had some new measurements taken and decreed the suit. In this second appeal the only poin...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Manzur Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All439
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent as zamindar against the defendant-appellant as a tenant for possession of a certain site in the town of Moudeha on the ground that the appellant who had originally been allowed occupation of the site for his house as an agriculturists had abandoned the house and the site.2. Bath the lower Courts have decreed the suit. In this appeal four pleas are raised. The first plea is that inasmuch as the appellant still has a holding in the village he could not be held to abandon the house site. The lower Courts have found that he has gone to live in another village, that he has not kept up the house which is in ruins and that he has sold the site under the ruins to another person. On these facts they have found abandonment. It is clear that, under the custom regulating the right of tenants in their houses in the abadi, abandonment of the site or the house is sufficient to cause the site to revert to the za...
Empire Engineering Co. Branch of the British India Corporation Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All801
1. This is the plaintiff's appeal. His suit was practically dismissed by the Court of first instance. On appeal by him and on a cross-objection put in by the defendant, the learned Judges composing the Bench hearing the appeal agreed in dismissing the cross-objection but differed as to the result of the appeal. The result was that both the appeal and the cross-objection failed. It is against the order of the Court dismissing the appeal that the present appeal has been failed.2. A limited company, described as 'plaintiff,' brought the suit of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of Rs. 19,048-1-9, being the price of a motor lorry and a pumping apparatus supplied by it to the defendant, the Municipal Board of Bareilly. The plaint was a simple one. It stated that the defendant, the Municipal Board of Bareilly, had purchased from the plaintiff the articles mentioned and agreed to pay the price in certain instalments detailed in the plaint. It further stated that delivery of the lorry,...
The Empire Engineering Co. Branch of the British India Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.853
1. This is the plaintiff's appeal. His suit was practically dismissed by the Court of first instance. On appeal by him and on a cross-objection put in by the defendant, the learned Judges composing the Bench hearing the appeal agreed in dismissing the cross objection but differed as to the result of the appeal. The result was that both the appeal and the cross-objection failed. It is against the order of the Court dismissing the appeal that the present appeal has been filed.2. A limited Company, described as 'plaintiff', brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of Rs. 19,048-1-9, being the price of a motor lerry and a pumping apparatus supplied by it to the defendant, the Municipal Board of Bareilly. The plaint was a simple one. It stated that the defendant, the ^Municipal Board of Bareilly, had purchased from the plaintiff the articles mentioned and agreed to pay the price in certain instalments detailed in the plaint. It further stated that delivery of the lo...
Sadho Kandu Vs. Mt. Jhinka Kuer and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All456
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant for arrears of maintenance fixed by a panchayat at Rs. 8 a month. It appears that the plaintiff, who is sister-in-law of the defendant, claimed from him Rs. 10 a month as maintenance, and that there was a quarrel over the matter. The plaintiff then made a criminal complaint under Sections 379 and 323, I.P.C. This induced the appellant to agree to the matter being decided by a panchayat. The award recites that the criminal case had been compromised. The defendant set up in defence the plea that his assent to the reference to the panchayat in pursuance of which the award was made was obtained because the plaintiff agreed to compromise the criminal complaint, and that this was an unlawful consideration. The trial Court rejected the plea on the ground that it is not unlawful to contract with a person for the compounding of a compoundable offence. The lower appellate Co...
Sahu Lal Chand Vs. L. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All462
1. This is an appeal by Lal Chand arising out of a suit for pre-emption under very peculiar circumstances. On 18th August 1922, a sale deed was executed by Himmat in favour of Raushan Lal for Rs. 1,400. Suit No. 159 of 1923, was instituted for pre-emption of the property sold by Ram Chandar and Tej Ram. This suit was dismissed and an appeal by the pre-emptors was preferred to the Court of the District Judge. While this matter was pending there was another suit (suit No. 188 of 1923) instituted by Lal Chand for specific performance of a previous contract alleged to have been entered into by Himmat in his favour. Lal Chand impleaded the vendor Himmat, the vendee Raushan Lal as well as the two pre-emptors Ram Chand and Tej Ram. This suit for specific performance was decreed. An appeal was preferred by Raushan Lal in the suit but this was dismissed by the District Judge and so also was an appeal preferred by Ram Chand and Tej Ram in the pre-emption suit. The position thus was that the suit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »