Allahabad Court June 1929 Judgments
Punjab Sugar Mills, Co., Ltd. Vs. Lachhman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All77
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of shares sold in two mahals. The plaintiff is admittedly a cosharer in the mahals and the defendant company which is the vendee is a stranger. The plaintiff alleged the existence of a custom of pre-emption and a right under the Pre-emption Act, and also asserted that the ostensible consideration of Rs. 24,000 was not the true consideration but only Rs. 19,333-5-3 were paid. The defendant originally contested the claim on the ground that there was no custom of pre-emption, that the consideration mentioned in the sale-deed was the true consideration and that the deed had been executed with the knowledge and consent and after the refusal of the plaintiff. Some days later the written statement was amended and a further plea was added that the share in question had been purchased for the cultivation of sugarcane for the factory which was a manufacturing industry and the plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeot Ram Chaudhari Vs. Mt. Lauji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All751
Dalal, J.1. This appeal involves a question of law which has not so far been specifically decided by this Court. The plaintiff Mt. Lauji is the widow of a predeceased son of one Abhilakh who owned 2 annas self-acquired property Admittedly this property was acquired by Abhilakh subsequent to the death of Dubri, husband of Mt. Lauji, the plaintiff. Abhilakh left him surviving three sons Palakdhari, Jeot Ram and Sheo Govind. During his lifetime he gifted an 8 pie share to Jeot Ram and Sheo Govind each, while the balance of 8 pie was inherited by Palakdhari. Such appears to be the fact, though it is not explained why the 8 pie share outside the two gifts was not inherited by all the three brothers. The moral obligation of Abhilakh to maintain the widow of a predeceased son cannot be denied. It is well established in this Court since 1888 in the case of Janki v. Nand Ram [1889] 11 All. 194 where a Pull Bench of this Court held in favour of the moral liability of the father-in-law which beca...
Tag this Judgment!(Bohra) Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Girwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All753
1. This appeal must be allowed. It is impossible to contest the proposition that the onus of establishing title by reason of possession for a certain requisite period lies upon the person asserting such possession. In other words, the burden of proving title by adverse possession lies upon the person claiming to have acquired title by such possession. The findings of the lower appellate Court in the present case are that the plaintiff's title to the property in dispute has been proved, and that the evidence of both parties as regards possession is worthless. On these findings, in our judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.2. The article applicable to a suit in which the plaintiff sues for possession of immovable property on the basis of his title is Article 144, Sch. 1, Lim. Act. and if in such a suit the plaintiff proves his title, he is entitled to a decree unless the defendant succeeds in establishing his adverse possession for a period of more than 12 years. To cases in w...
Tag this Judgment!Raghubir Chaube and anr. Vs. Gauri Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All803; 122Ind.Cas.662
1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree of the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are cosharers in a mahal along with the defendants and the plaintiffs sued for possession of certain specific plots and for damages for dispossession in regard to the year 1332 Fasli. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit for separate possession of the plaintiffs and damages and granted a decree merely for joint possession. The plaintiffs based their case on the following facts.2. Newaz Chaube was a cosharer in this mahal and he mortgaged the zemindari to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought a suit on this mortgage and got a foreclosure decree and purchased the share of Newaz Chaube. Newaz Chaube had certain sir lands in this mahal and he became the ex-proprietary tenant of the sir as the result of these proceedings. Newaz Chaube paid his rent to the plaintiffs alone since the year 1883. A dispute arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants in ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugul Kishore Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All791
1. This is a second appeal by the defendant on a very simple point. The defendant bought certain property at an auction-sale on 20th December 1918, for a price which has not been disclosed but is said to be between Rs. 300 and 400. The same proclamation sets out that property was subject to a prior mortgage of 28th June 1912.2. The defendant sold the property to the plaintiff by a sale-deed dated 22nd June 1920 in which he stated that he was selling the property which he had purchased at the auction-sale of 20th December 1918. The sale consideration was Rs. 1,000. Subsequently a suit No. 9 of 1923 was brought by the mortgagee for Rs. 2,200 on the mortgage of 28th June 1912, and in that suit 20th May 1925 was fixed for sale. The plaintiff brought the present suit on 29th April 1925 asking for alternative reliefs either that the defendant might be directed to pay the amount due to the mortgagee or that the defendant might be directed to pay to the plaintiff the sale consideration of Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ajaib Vs. Noor Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All808; 118Ind.Cas.709
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession of four plots of land and Rs. 156 as mesne profits.2. Nur Khan, Ismail Khan and Mustaqim the three plaintiffs and one Wazira were the joint occupancy tenants of a certain holding which included the four plots in dispute. By a mutual partition, the four plots were allotted by the plaintiffs to Wazira, and Wazira was in cultivatory possession of the same. Wazira died six years before suit leaving a grandson Sikandar. Sikandar died a month after Wazira. Mt. Ajaib, the defendant, is now in possession of this property. She applied to the revenue Court for the entry of her name in the rent roll and her name was recorded with the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are no longer desirous that the name of Mt. Ajaib should continue to remain recorded in the jamabandi and applied for the removal of her name from the revenue record. The application was rejected by the revenue Court and the plaintiffs were referred to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikam Prasad Vs. Rani Indumati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All984
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs are purchasers of a grove from the defendant Rani Indumati and sued for possession because in mutation proceedings she and other defendants objected to the entry of the plaintiff's names against the grove in suit. Both the Subordinate Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the registration was not-valid and there could be no transfer of a grove of the value of the property in suit except by means of a registered document. The principle of the rulings of the Privy Council reported in Harendra Lal v. Haridasi Debi A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 67 and Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 8 have been followed. Possibly because these rulings are considered by Indian Courts to work hardship on honest litigants, attempts have been made to distinguish cases from these rulings. The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to a Bench ruling of this Court in Durga Prasad v. Tameshar Prasad A.I.R. 1924 All. 897. What happened in the present case was that...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Girwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-28-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.6
1. This appeal must be allowed it is impossible to contest the proposition that the onus of establishing title by reason of possession for a certain requisite period lies upon the person asserting such possession. In other words, the burden of proving title by adverse possession lies upon the person claiming to have acquired title by such possession.2. The findings of the lower Appellate Court in the present case are that the plaintiff's title to the property in dispute has been proved, and that the evidence of both parties as regards possession is worthless. On these findings, in our judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.3. The article applicable to a suit in which the plaintiff sues for possession of immoveable property on the basis of his title is Article 144 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, and if in such a suit the plaintiff proves his title, he is entitled to a decree, unless the defendant succeeds is establishing his adverse possession for a period of more...
Tag this Judgment!Subedar Singh Vs. Komal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All656
Dalal, J.1. There is no force in this appeal. The plaintiff's father sold a certain 5 biswas share of the family property to the defendant Komal Singh and also relinquished sir plots. In accordance with the relinquishment Komal Singh was put in possession. The plaintiff did not attack the sale itself as a member of a joint Hindu family who had not joined in the sale but took the line of claiming the sir plots which were relinquished by his father. Both the subordinate Courts held that once relinquishment was given effect to the plaintiff could not succeed. The difference in their opinion consisted of this that while the trial Court was of opinion that Komal Singh had obtained possession over plots in group A only the lower appellate Court held that Komal Singh had obtained possession over plots in all the three groups narrated in the plaint. Admittedly the plaintiff came to Court more than six months after the ejectment. It was argued here that the period of limitation of 12 years will...
Tag this Judgment!Ata Karim Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All756a
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit in which the following relief was prayed for: The plaintiff prays that the Municipal Board be ordered not to offer any sort of interference and not to restrain the plaintiff from making constructions in respect of the mosque in question, shown in the annexed map, and not to enforce the District Magistrate's order, dated 12th September 1927, for the demolition of the said mosque.2. The plaintiff came into Court on the allegation that he owned a mosque in mohalla Danrya in ward Chandiana within the Municipal limits of Fatehpur, that the mosque being in a dilapidated condition, he applied to the Municipal Board for leave to re-erect the mosque on 6th June 1927, that the Municipal Board granted him permission on 2nd July 1927, that later on, two persons namely, Amar Nath clerk to B. Bans Gopal Vakil and one Basdeo made an application in the Court of the District Magistrate by way of an appeal and that the District Magistrate by his ord...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »