Allahabad Court January 1930 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.
Jawala Shanker Sahai Vs. Bohra Sri Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All729
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The plaintiff relied on an extract from a wajibularz, and neither he nor the defendants filed a complete khewat to explain the constitution of the village. A complete khewat has now been produced under our direction.2. The property sold is situate within the municipal limits of Jalesar, and as held under the order, dated 27th May 1927, the Act does not apply to it and the case is governed by the customary law if any.3. The property sold consists of a share in a milak consisting of resumed muafi lands. An examination of the khewat makes it quite clear that the body of cosharers, whose names are shown against serial number 1, own the entire 20 biswas in the mahal. After them come proprietors, who own these milaks and who are serially numbered but against their properties no fractional share is entered in the column of shares. It is therefore quite clear that these proprietors do not own any fractional share...
Pandit Jawala Shanker Sahai Vs. Dohra Sri Ram and Zaki HusaIn Beg and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.578
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff relied on an extract from a wajib-ul-arz and neither he nor the defendants filed a complete khewat to explain the Constitution of the village. A complete khewat has now been produced under our direction.2. The property sold is situate within the Municipal limits of Jalesar, and as held under the order, dated the 27th of May, 1927, the Act does not apply to it and the case is governed by the Customary Law if any.3. The property sold consists of a share in a milak consisting of resumed muafi lands. An examination of the khewat makes it quite clear that the body of co sharers, whose names are shown against serial number own the entire (sic) biswas in. the mahal. After them come (sic), who own these milaks and who (sic) serially numbered, but against their (sic) no fractional share is entered in (sic) of shares. It is, therefore, (sic) that these proprietors do not own any (sic) share in the 20 biswas of t...
Bhora Hazari Lal Vs. Bhora Nauranga Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All517
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a certain sum of money paid by him towards the Government revenue in respect of a share in defendant-appellant's possession as thekadar. The circumstances which led to the institution of the suit are briefly these: Mt. Bhawani Kunwar was in possession of the share in respect of which revenue was paid by the plaintiff-respondent. She died in 1921. A year before her death she had granted a theka of her share to the defendant-appellant, who was bound in terms of his lease to pay the Government revenue. After the death of Bhawani Kunwar two rival claimants appeared on the scene. One was the plaintiff-respondent and the other was a person who claimed to have a preferential reversionary right. The controversy before the revenue Courts had varying results. At one stage the plaintiff-respondent was recognized as the rightful claimant and was appointed a lambardar. During the period that he he...
Ram Prasad Tamoli Vs. Benares Cotton and Silk Mills, Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All399
Dalal, J.1. Both learned counsel, Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad and Mr. Govind Das, have helped the Court by placing before it all the relevant rulings on the subject. The Cotton Mills of Benares obtained a kabuliyat from Ram Prasad for purchase of grass growing on two groves within their compound for one year. The document was stamped with a stamp of one anna and the proper fee has now been received together with penalty and the document admitted in evidence. The purchase was for a sum of Rs. 600, out of which Rs. 300 had been paid and a suit was brought by the company in the Court of Small Causes for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 300. There is a certain amount of apparent conflict between two rulings of this Court, one in the case of B. & N.W. By. v. Bandhu Singh [1909] 31 All. 342, and the other of Manohar Lal v. Gauri Rautain [1911] 12 A.L.J. 36. 1 think the conflict, however, has been set at rest in favour of the later ruling of 1913 by the present Tenancy Act (3 of 1926) subsequent to the pas...
Ram Phal Singh and ors. Vs. Bachchu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All410
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of possession of a piece of land shown in red and marked A in a plan accompanying the plaint. The reliefs of injunction and damages are also claimed. The plaintiffs were originally tenants in the village in which the land in dispute is situate. They appear to have had cultivation at a fairly large scale. The defendants are non-resident zamindars of part of the village. About' ten years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiffs purchased a small share in mahal' Bhawani Baksh Singh, which is one of the three mahals into which the whole village is divided. The defendants have also a small share in mahal Bhawani Bakhsh Singh, besides being the owners of the remaining two mahals, namely, mahal Khet Singh and mahal Phaldan Singh. The plaintiffs do not appear to have ever been the tenants of the defendants. They held a small area as subtenants from one of the defenda...
Banshidhar and ors. Vs. B. Suraj Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All437; 121Ind.Cas.826
Sulaiman, J.1. The main point which arises in this application is whether only one set or two sets of costs can be allowed under the rules on account of the legal practitioners' fees. So far as this Court is Concerned it is quite clear that the appeal which was originally filed was distinct and set apart from the appeal which was filed from the decree passed on remand. These two being different appeals separate costs must be allowed,2. As regards the costs in the Court below the decree was set aside by the High Court and the suit was remanded for trial de novo. But the suit continued to be the same suit. Under Chap. 21, Rule 20, the party entitled under a decree or an order to pay costs in a suit by another party shall not be entitled to any larger allowance for legal practitioner's fees in the suit including all proceedings in the execution of the original decree, than the fees provided in Rule 22. It seems to us that as the rule stands the parties are entitled to only one set of cost...
Kali Deen Singh Vs. Jagdat Pathak
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All440; 122Ind.Cas.894
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court who allowed the second appeal by holding that under the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act, it was not open to the plaintiff to prove by oral evidence a contract which was inconsistent with a written bond of 31st May 1914.2. The first point taken before us is that the learned Judge of this Court has upset a finding of fact.3. It appears that the respondent Jagdat Pathak brought a suit against the appellant Kali Deen Singh for his ejectment in the revenue Court alleging that Kali Dean was his tenant. The appellant Kali Dean pleaded there that he was holding the land in lieu of interest of a bond which had been executed by Jagdat's brother on 31st May 1914. Kali Deen was referred to the civil Court and accordingly he instituted the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen.4. The first Court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate Court decreed it finding that the contract alleged by ...
Mt. Basanti Bibi Vs. Babulal Poddar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All225
1. This is a first appeal brought by the plaintiff Mt. Basanti Bibi whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Court on the sole ground of limitation. The family tree is as follows:Radha Kishan|-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Ram Narain. Gulzari Lal. Sita Ram. Ransukh Das.Mt Shib Bai | | || ---------------- ---------------- ----------------| | | | | | |Mt Basanti Ram Kanwar Badri Gauri Namchand Madan Lal Kai CharanPibi defendant Das. Shanker. Defendant defendant defendantplaintiff. 2. 3. 4. 5.Kanhaiya Lal.2. The property in suit is a ginning factory and cotton press situate in the town of Hathras. The plaintiff Mt. Basanti Bibi is a married lady living in Bihar in the District of Monghyr. Her plaint asks for the following reliefs:That it may be declared that the plaintiff is the sole owner of 11/4 annas share which belonged to Lal Ram Narain (her father) out of the five annas share of the firm Radha Kishan-Sita Ram and that defendant 9 (one...
Gudri Singh and anr. Vs. Jangi Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.25
Dalal, J.1. The judgments of the two subordinate Courts are very vague and they have not considered the question of the proprietary title of the plaintiff after fully understanding the law as to the presumption to be drawn under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The latter will have to be referred again to the lower Appellate Court for a decision whether Mahadeo has been proved to have been dead on the llth of February, 1927, when Kumar executed a sale-deed of one-third of the property in favour of the plaintiff. In considering the question of presumption both the subordinate Courts missed the very important point that the only presumption they were entitled to draw by the fact Mahadeo not having been heard of for 15 or 16 years prior to the institution of the suit by those who would be likely to hear of him had he been alive was that he was dead on the date of the institution of the suit. There could be no presumption whether he died a day prior to the institution of the suit or whethe...
Sham Sunder Singh and anr. Vs. Jagannath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All371
Mukerji, J.1. The short question that we have to answer in this appeal is whether the present suit, i.e. the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C.2. The facts briefly are as follows: One Dirg Bijai Singh had four sons, Lal Bahadur Singh, Jagannath Singh, Ran Bahadur Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh. Lal Bahadur Singh's son is Sham Sundar Singh, defendant i, and Sham Sundar Singh's son is Nagendra Bahadur Singh, defendant 2. The other defendants are transferees from defendant 2's. Dirg Bijai Singh was a taluqdar. He died sometime in 1887. Before his death he made a will by which ho gave the taluqa estate to his eldest son. Lal Bahadur Singh. By way of provision for his other sons, he bequeathed by his will, certain specified items of immovable property, to them, to be enjoyed by them when they chose to live separate from their eldest brother Lal Bahadur Singh. He also directed by the will that in the case of separation all the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »