Allahabad Court February 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.
Ali Hasan Vs. Mt. Rashidan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All237
Dalal, J.1. I do not agree with the view of law taken by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court that a transfer by a Muhammadan in lieu of a certain dower debt does not amount to a sale. In the present case the plaintiff, son of one Jahangir, who was the son of Mt. Misran Bibi, sued for his share of a certain house on the death of Mt. Misran Bibi. Jahangir had predeceased Misran Bibi. The defence of plaintiff's stepmother Mt. Batulan, Jahangir's second wife, was that the house had been gifted to her. This defence is put forward in a somewhat inartistic manner in para. 3 of Mt. Batulan's written statement:This defendant was not willing to marry, and she gave her consent, only when it was agreed upon that in lieu of her dower debt the father of the plaintiff and Mt. Misran Bibi would give her the house in dispute. Accordingly, in lieu of her dower, debt, the plaintiff's father and Mt. Misran Bibi gave her the house-in dispute and put her in possession thereof.3. The house was the...
Ganga Ram and anr. Vs. Basant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.763
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court granting an injunction against the defendant. The plaintiffs brought a suit as zemidars against the defendant No 1 Ganga Earn, as grove holder, alleging that defendant No. 1 had let portions of his grove to defendant No. 2 for cultivation and had also cut down old trees in his grove and planted new trees. The reliefs asked for were that the Court should order the defendants to remove the newly planted trees and to give the plaintiffs possession over the whole area of the grove and if the relief of possession be not granted' to forbid the defendants to carry on cultivation in the aforesaid land and not to interfere with the plaintiffs' cultivation. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the action of the grove-holder in letting land for Cultivation was not illegal, and finding that the land retained its character of grove although certain...
Ram Sarup Vs. Shambhu Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All396
Sen, J.1. The land of the parties to the suit is continuous. In between, there was a party wall the width of which was 15 inches. The defendant demolished his side of the wall and in rebuilding the same he encroached upon the plaintiff's land to the extent of 2 inches. The result was that the present width of the defendant's will is 10 inches in place of its original width which was only 7 inches.2. The suit was, instituted for demolition of the wall for a mandatory injunction and for possession of 2, inches of land belonging to the plaintiffs which had been encroached upon by the defendant.3. The suit had a chequered career. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' suit presumably upon the ground that the claim was of a trivial nature. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and gave the plaintiffs a decree for Rs. 50 by way of compensation. This Court on second appeal came to the conclusion that the suit was not one for a mandatory injunction sim...
Abdul Haq Vs. Lallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All436
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant who is a zamindar along with his brother of a certain plot of land in a village sued the defendants-tenants Lallu and Abdul Ghani for recovery of rent. The other brother Abdul Rashid was not made a party either as plaintiff or as defendant. It is obvious from the tenor of the plaint that he desired to sue under the provisions of Section 266(1), Tenancy Act. What was stated in para. 1 of the plaint was that he was the zamindar making collections in respect of the muafi land situated in a certain village. The obvious interpretation of these words will be that he sued for himself and as agent of his brother. It was argued here by the respondents learned counsel that the mere statement of being a collecting co-sharer did not indicate a claim that he was an agent of his brother. It is not apparent how otherwise except by reason of agency one co-sharer can collect rent on behalf of another. A specific issue was raised whether the plaintiff was agent of his...
Abdul Muwali Vs. Tahsildar of Kashipur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All511
Niamatullah, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies to this Court from the order of Mr.G.L. Vivian, the Deputy Commissioner of Kumaun,'dated 26th July 1928, passed in insolvency proceedings.2. One Mubarak Husain was adjudged insolvent on 8th December 1925 on application presented by his creditor Sukhdeo on 28th March 1924 and the 13th May 1925. He had executed a mortgage deed, dated 30th December 1922 in favour of Abdul Muwali, the appellant. The Tahsildar of Kashipur who was appointed receiver made an application for annulment of the mortgage aforesaid on 10th January 1928. The Deputy Commissioner, Naini Tal, who exercised the powers of a civil Court under the Insolvency Act, annulled the mortgage impugned by the receiver, under Section 53, Insolvency Act. The present appeal was filed by the mortgagee Abdul Muwali impugning the correctness of the order of the Deputy Commissioner referred to.3. It has been argued for ...
Shankar Lal and anr. Vs. Mohammad Ismail and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All552
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order passed by the District Judge of Saharanpur in a matter arising out of insolvency.2. One Mahmud Ahmad had borrowed money from Mohammad Ismail, respondent 1, and executed a promissory note in his favour. He died leaving as his heirs three sons, Ziaul Haq, Nazir Ahmad and Inamul Haq and a widow Mt. Mariam Bibi. Mohammad Ismail sued these heirs on the promissory note and obtained a decree in suit No. 163 of 1926. The assets left by the deceased were attached in execution of this decree and 20th February 1929 was fixed for sale of the property.3. Ziaul Haq, his mother and his two brothers had contracted debts from Shankar Lal and Pearey Lal in their personal capacity. On 26th November 1928, the creditors applied that these persons be adjudicated insolvent. Before any order of adjudication had been passed, these creditors applied to the insolvency Court on 11th February 1929, for the stay of sale pending the disposal of their petition for a...
Shanker Lal-lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Phul Chand-fateh Chand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All584
Mukerji, J.1. The appeal raises only two points, both of law, which arise under the following circumstances:The plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us, gave the defendants an order for supply of three bales of dhotis of a certain kind. The order was accepted and the contract was drawn up in the terms laid down by the Delhi Mercantile Association. The agreement is printed at p. 27 of the record. It contained in para, 15, an arbitration clause. After the date fixed for delivery a difference arose between the parties. The defendants said that their goods were ready and they should be paid for. The plaintiffs demanded certain documents, and complained that they had not been delivered, and they were not bound to take the goods. We are, however, not concerned with the exact nature or the merits of the difference that arose between the parties. The defendants wanted that the difference that had arisen should be settled by reference to arbitration. They nominated one Mr. Dina Nath Kapoor...
Mt. Chito Vs. Jhunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All395
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion the ruling quoted by the two Subordinate Courts of Chinnaswami v. Appaswami [1919] 42 Mad. 25 covers the present case. The plaintiff is the mother of certain judgment debtors in whose favour the plaintiff's mother executed a deed of gift on 22nd January 1913. The plaintiff Mt. Chito gave her consent to the deed of gift by signing as an attesting witness. Mt. Chito's mother died in 1914 and ever since that time the judgment-debtors have been in possession. When the decree-holder attached this property of the judgment-debtors, Mt. Chito objected that the property really belonged to her because she was not bound by the gift executed by her mother. The Judges who pronounced the judgment of the Madras case quoted a ruling of 1864 reported in Pratab Chander v. JOY Monee Dabee 1 W.R. 98. The learned Judges observed in that case:We think that it admits of no reasonable doubt that under Hindu Law a Hindu lady in possession can relinquish, and by relinquishing anticipat...
Niranjan Lal Vs. Jhamman Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All234
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Panna Lal, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has distinguished this case from the ruling quoted by the lower appellate Court of a Bench of this Court, Sita Ram Dube v. Ram Sunder Prasad : AIR1928All412 , but, in my opinion, the principles of that ruling will apply. In the present case the house was purchased by the father of the defendants in 1907, whereupon in the following year the sons of one of the vendors sued for the setting aside of the sale deed and for possession, and the suit was decreed on 18th March 1909, for joint possession to the extent of one-third. Possession was taken by Niranjan Lal on 26th November 1910, in the manner laid down in Order 21, Rule 96, Civil P.C. Subsequently, Niranjan LaL did not sue for partition; nor did he receive any rent from the defendants who continued in possession of the entire house. It is argued here that the defendants were not trespassers because by reason of the house not being partitioned they were entitled rightly to...
irfan Ali and ors. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All837
Mukerji, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal which has arisen owing to a difference of opinion between two learned Judges before whom the First Appeal No. 247 of 1925 came for decision. The difference of opinion has arisen only on a point of law, and therefore it would not be necessary to state the facts in detail. Briefly, they are these. One Mubarak Ali died possessed of certain immovable property of considerable value. He died on 2nd January 1914. Before his death he executed several deeds. One was a document described as a will, which was executed on 22nd June 1909, another was a codicil to that will executed on 3rd January 1911, and lastly he executed the document which is in dispute before us. This purported to be a deed of wakf created by means of a will. It was executed on 23rd October 1913.2. By the document of 23rd October 1913 Mubarak Ali provided (see p. 29 of the printed book) that he would remain in possession of his property during his lifetime and would support himself...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »