Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All420
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants, arising out of a suit for declaration that Abdul Wahid was the owner of the property in dispute, that the said property was liable to be sold in execution of decree No. 152 of 1922 obtained by the plaintiff against Abdul Wahid and that the decree in suit No. 326 of 1911 obtained by Abdul Ahad against his son Abdul Wahid was fictitious, collusive and not binding upon the son.2. The relation of some of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table:MoizuddinMunni Begam|| | | |Abdus Samad Abdul Tafwizannisa Tahmidannisa| Ahad =Ghafur =Rafat| | Ahmad AhmadDaughter | |Abdul Wahid | || AbdulFatma Wahid.Begam3. Munni Begam had a son Abdul Ahad and two daughters Tafwizannisa and Tahmidan Nisa. Abdul Ahad was married to Mt. Fatma Begam. Abdul Wahid is the son of Abdul Ahad by another wife. On 12th June 1890, an award was made on a reference to arbitration between Munni Begam and some of her relations. Under this award, a moiet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.403
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 II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code.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 No. 1, and Sham Sandar Singh's son is Nagendra Bahadur Singh, defendant No. 2. The other defendants are transferees from the two defendants, Dirg Bijai Singh. was a taluqdar. He died sometime in 1887: Before his death he made a Will by which he 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 immoveable 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 se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All419; 121Ind.Cas.825
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to certain zamindari property and for possession in the alternative. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table;Baijnath________|_________| |Ram Autar Suraj Bali|| | |Data Din Sat Narain |plaintiff 2 plaintiff 1 Ram Sanmukh=Mt. Nohra(defendant)2. Data Din and Sat Narain claimed to be the members of a joint Hindu family with Ram Sanmukh, husband of Mt. Nohra defendant. They alleged that Ram Sanmukh died in the year 1918 as a member of the joint Hindu family and that they became owners of the property which was recorded in his name by right of survivorship and that the name of Mt. Nohra was recorded in the revenue papers only by way of solatii cause.3. The suit was resisted on the ground that Ram Sanmukh died as a member of a divided family, that upon his death his property devolved upon his widow by right of inheritance, and that the suit was obnoxious to the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All427
Sen, J.1. The suit, which has given rise to this second appeal, was for a declaration that an ex parte decree in suit No. 11 of 1922 in re, Raja Jiwan Singh, plaintiff v. Kunwar Tara Singh and Ors. defendants passed by the revenue Court on 3rd February 1923 was vitiated by fraud and that the entire proceedings consequent upon the said decree were void, ineffectual and not binding upon the plaintiffs.2. There is a small estate in the district of Mainpuri known as Eka Raj which is held by the defendant appellant as Raja and Gaddi Nashin. The plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2 and 3 and the husbands of defendants 4 and 5 are descended from a common ancestor. Raja Jiwan Singh, a defendant 1, who is the appellant in this Court is the accredited head of the family. The junior members of the family received from generation to generation either some cash allowance or some property for their maintenance. In pursuance of this custom the plaintiffs and their father Kunwar Har Govind Singh and defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All433; 121Ind.Cas.826
Dalal, J.1. The defendants are admittedly ex-proprietary tenants of the and on which the tree grew. The plaintiff zamindar complained that the defendants lopped off branches of the tree and brought the wood to their own use. It was contended in appeal that the lower appellate Court had not considered the defendants' case that it was necessary for them to lop off the branches in order to protect other trees on the same plot of land and the crops of neighbouring fields. This matter has been considered by the lower appellate Court because that Court refused to grant the plaintiff an injunction to prevent the defendants from lopping off branches when necessary. The real question at issue is to whom the wood of these lopped off branches belonged. It is not dry wood which has fallen off by itself. The wood is living wood which is part of the timber of the tree. The lower appellate Court has rightly referred to the ruling of this Court in Lachman Das v. Mohan Singh [1912] 9 A.L.J. 672. There ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All509
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for partition of a house. The house was mortgaged and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for sale under Order 34, Rule 4, Civil P. 0. At the auction sale, which took place in the year 1921, the plaintiffs purchased the house for Es. 100. Defendant 1 Mt. Mahbuban, a sister of the original judgment-debtor, obtained a decree for A one-sixth share of the house, although she had claimed the whole of the house. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was for partition and defendant 1 applied to the Court of first instance that under Section 4, Partition Act 4, 1893, she should be allowed to purchase the whole of the house although her share was only one-sixth. The learned Munsiff acting under Section 4, Partition Act, ordered the defendants to deposit Es. 100 and directed the plaintiffs to execute a sale deed in favour of Mt. Mahbuban.2. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned District Judge, and the two point...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All516
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 378-3-0 principal and Rs. 134-13-0 interest, in respect of certain land revenue which had been paid by the plaintiff-appellant by reason of a default on the part of the cosharers of mauza Mohammad pur Gularia, mahal Soem. Mt. Gaura and 34 other persons were cosharers in this mahal. Mt. Gaura had executed a simple mortgage of her share in this property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. She had also passed a mortgage in favour of one Ujagir Singh. Ujagir Singh put his mortgage into suit, obtained a decree against Mt. Gaura and purchased her interest in the property himself. Plaintiff brought a suit for enforcement of his prior lien by suit No. 136 of 1917 which was directed both against Mt. Gaura, the mortgagor, and Ujagir Singh, the puisne encumbrancer, who had in the meantime already purchased the property. The plaintiff's claim was decreed and in execution of the final decree obtained by him, the interest of Mt. Gaura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All737
Dalal, J.1. I have gone through The various affidavits and the explanation of the Magistrate who is trying the different cases, Unfortunately the cases have assumed a communal aspect as the dispute is between Hindus and Mahomedans. I well realize that in such a case the class to which the Magistrate belongs raises a suspicion in the opposite class, and, therefore, in cases of transfer where communal interests are involved a transfer should be granted with considerable hesitation. In the present case, however, I am afraid that the trying Magistrate has shown a certain amount of irritation and behaved in a way which would give legitimate cause to the Mahomedans to think that they would not receive justice in his Court. As I have often stated from this Bench, the matter is not to be decided in the abstract whether a certain Magistrate would deal with a matter impartially or not. The question always would be whether through some error or unfortunate accident the Magistrate has behaved in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 123Ind.Cas.336
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for partition of a house. The house was mortgaged and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for sale under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. At the auction-sale, which took place in the year 1921, the plaintiffs purchased the house for Rs. 100. Defendant No. 1 Musammat Mahbuban a sister of the original judgment-debtor, obtained a decree for a one sixth share of the house, although she had claimed the whole of the house. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was for partition and defendant No. 1 applied to the Court of first instance that under Section 4 of the Partition Act (IV of 1893) she should be allowed to purchase the whole of the house although her share was only one-sixth. The learned Munsif acting under Section 4 of the Partition Act ordered the defendants to deposit Rs. 100 and directed the plaintiffs to execute a sale deed in favour of Musammat Mahbuban.2. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 123Ind.Cas.817
1. This appeal arises from a suit for a declaration of title in respect of the land described in Lists A and B of the plaint. The plaintiff-appellants are the Zemindars of Kotha muafi, and the defendant-respond ants are the zemindars of Rahua. The disputed land lies roughly between these two villages, and it is the case for the plaintiffs that in 1892 by the action of the river Rapti it was brought from the side of Rahua village to the side of Kotha, and that they (the plaintiffs) have been actually in possession of the land either themselves or through a predecessor from 1892 until; the date of the suit. The lower Court although finding that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land for over twelve years before the suit, found that their possession had not been continuous owing to the fact that the land had been during part of that period submerged by the river and that in consequence the plaintiff's possession had been interrupted; and following the decisions of the Privy Cou...
Tag this Judgment!