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.
intzar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Shaikh Abdul Haq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.558
1. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in this Court, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to obtain, inter alia, a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove abridge which they had constructed over a lane to connect their houses situate on either, side of it. The basis of the claim of the plaintiffs was that the lane was their property, along with the defendants other than the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendants Nos. 1 and 1 denied that the lane was the plaintiffs' property and said that it belonged to Government, being Nazul land.2. It appears that the bridge crosses a blind lane in which the houses of the parties are situated, but at the site in question, namely, under the bridge, there is no body's house except those of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.3. The learned Munsif found that the title-deeds of the parties did not cover the land in suit. These documents describe the lane as a passage leading to houses. The Munsif also found that there is n...
K.B.H. Mohammad MohiuddIn Haidar Vs. Doori Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All441
Bennet, J.1. This is Letters Patent appeal brought by the defendant against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit in the revenue Court under Section 95, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 2 of 1901), for a declaration that he was an occupancy tenant of the defendant zamindar in succession to his uncle Khiali in whose cultivation he shared. The Court of first instance granted a declaration, and as a question of jurisdiction had been decided, the defendant appealed to the Court of the District Judge. The District Judge reversed the decree and came to a finding in the following terms:It appears that the plaintiff did return to the village, but it is not proved whether he shared in the cultivation, or whether he was merely lending a helping hand to an elderly relation.2. The evidence on the record was that the last occupancy tenant Kheali was an old man of 80 years and it was admitted by a witness for the defendant that over a year...
Ghanshiam Das Baijnath Vs. Mithan Lal Tandan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All529a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing a suit based on a promissory note. The promissory note was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, but the Court below has come to the conclusion that although the defendants received consideration, they did so not from the plaintiff, but from Bisheshar Nath, and has held that the suit is premature, because the defendants state that settlement will be made between them when their accounts are settled.2. It is clear that the learned Judge has not dismissed the suit on the ground that a benamidar could not sue in place of the true owner if the promissory note stood in his name. Such a ground would not be tenable. The dismissal is based on the supposition that the claim is premature. It seems to us that a claim based on a promissory note payable on demand must be decreed, and the defendants cannot resist the claim by saying that the amount would be given credit for in the...
Bhawani Prasad and ors. Vs. Pahlad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All531
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, finding in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the claim of the plaintiff for the removal of a drain made by defendant across a courtyard on which the houses of the parties abut. The drain was made with permission from the Municipal Board of Meerut. The courtyard is connected with a road, and the finding of the lower appellate Court is:Once this courtyard belonged to the plaintiff, but in 1910 the Municipal Board of Meerut paved it out of Municipal funds and since then it became a public street,I hold that the plaintiff is not now the owner of this lane, but its proprietorship is now vested at least since 1910 with the Municipal Board of Meerut.2. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, but the learned single Judge of this Court has found in favour of the plaintiff in regard to this drain. He has arrived at that finding on a consideration of th...
Bhagwat Prasad Shukul Vs. Nabi Mohammad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All514
Young, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who is the sole zamindar of village Imilha, against the defendants, praying that he may eject the defendants from their houses with permission that they could remove the materials thereof.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the zamindar and owner of the site of the houses in question. The defendants occupied the site of the houses and they also held fairly large agricultural holdings in the village, and in 1923, as they had failed to pay rent for some 'considerable time, they were ejected in proceedings under Section 429, old Tenancy Act. The question which arises for decision in this case is whether the fact that the defendants have now ceased to be tenants of the village entitled the zamindar to eject them from the houses which they occupy.3. The village in question is an ordinary Indian agricultural village. The ordinary position, as I understand it, in Indian villages is this, that a zamindar gener...
(Mandir) Thakurji Maharaj Vs. Risal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All527
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Meerut, in proceedings under Section 81. Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926.2. Appellant is the zamindar of village Nagal in which the respondent is his tenant. The appellant issued a notice under Section 81, Tenancy Act, against the defendant calling upon him to pay arrears of rent for the years 1332, 1333 and Rabi 1334 Fasli. Notice was, as usual, filed in the Court of the Tahsildar with an application referred to in that section praying for ejectment of the tenant in case arrears were not paid. The respondent contested that notice on the ground that the appellant's claim to the arrears of rent for the years mentioned above was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C., inasmuch as the appellant had instituted, on 23rd April 1927, a suit for arrears of rent for Rabi 1331 Fasli. It should be mentioned that the rent for the years 1332, 1333 and Rabi 1334 Fasli was overdue on ...
Singar Kunwar Vs. Basdeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All568
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 9th September 1913 executed by Kunwar Sheopal Singh, the deceased husband of defendant 1, in favour of Shekher Prasad, the father of the plaintiffs. The mortgage deed was for Rs. 15,000 and carried interest at 0-7-6 per cent per mensem with six-monthly rests. The plaintiffs have given credit for Rs. 150, and have claimed the balance together with interest amounting to nearly Rs. 27,000. The main defence raised on behalf of the defendants was want of consideration, although even the execution of the document was not admitted. The learned Subordinate Judge has found the mortgage deed to have been duly executed, but has held that part of the consideration has not been established, and has accordingly decreed the claim in part. The defendant has appealed and the plaintiffs have filed a cross objection.2. The mortgage deed is printed at p. 55 and the details of consideration are t...
Pokhar Singh Vs. Mt. Dulari Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All687
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and First Appeal No. 301 of 1926 arise out of the same judgment and the two appeals may therefore be decided jointly.2. The facts are briefly these:(For pedigree table see p. 688)3. The pedigree given above will explain the relationship that exists between the parties to the suit. Kuar Dalip Singh was a rich landed proprietor who died in 1893. He left him surviving his widow Rani Sundar Kuar and four daughters, namely Mt. Dulari, Mt. Bodhi, Mt. Nannhi and Mt. Kalawati Mt. Sundar Kuar died on 2nd September 1919; Mt. Nannhi died in 1900; Mt. Kalawati died in 1915 and Mt. Kalawati's son Sheoraj Singh died in 1925.4. On 1st May 1898 the mother and the four daughters, three of whom were already married (Mt. Bodhi had become a widow) the fourth daughter Kalawati being yet unmarried, agreed in executing a document which has been described by the executants as a deed of partition. By this document the immovable property left by Dalip Singh was divided in five lots. We...
Phagoo Murao Vs. Tulshi Ram Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All438
Young, J.1. This is an interesting case and from one point of view not without difficulty. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for a declaration that certain property, which he alleged was his, was not liable to be sold in execution of a decree in another suit No. 489 of 1929.2. The facts are that one Parmeshwar Datt mortgaged a certain property to one Tulshi. In 1876 Tulshi sold his mortgagee rights to one Dewa Datt. In 1893 the mortgagor Parmeshwar Datt sold the equity to Gurcharan, and Gurcharan in his turn gave the property, subject to the mortgage, to Nageshar and his brother. The sons of the original mortgagor, one Ram Bharose and Nageshar No. 2, in spite of the fact that their father had already transferred the equity, transferred it again to Kamta and Tulshi. A suit was brought by Nageshar and his brother against Kamta and Tulshi for recovery of the property, and that suit very naturally failed because it was obvious that their transferrers had nothing to transfer. Then K...
Balbhadar Singh Vs. Lakshmi Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All669
Sen, J.1. Baboo, son of Sukhdeo Das, was a resident of Agra and owned three pucca built houses in mohalla Chipitola. On 12th February 1916 he executed a deed of gift of these houses in favour of his nephew Balbhadra who is the plaintiff in this action. This deed of gift was duly registered. On the date of the execution of the deed of gift Baboo owed about Rs. 400 to Bansidhar, Gulab Singh, Ram Gopal and Balmukund. The deed of gift purports to have been attested by three witnesses, viz., Durga Prasad, Brijbasi Lal and Bansidhar. The document provided that the debt due from the donor was to be paid by Balbhadra the donee. It is not disputed that Balbhadra did not pay this debt. It further appears that there was no transmutation of possession. Balbhadra lived at Benares. Baboo lived at Agra. Baboo continued in possession of the houses notwithstanding the execution of the deed of gift. On 17th September 1917, Baboo revoked the deed of gift in favour of Balbhadra by means of a duly register...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »