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.
Nakched Chaudhari Vs. Sukhdeo Chaudhari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All430
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of the property to which his deceased father Gaya became entitled as next reversioner on the death of a Hindu widow of the family Mt. Richhpali in 1917. It is admitted by the subordinate Courts that Gaya was next reversioner on the death of Ms. Richhpali but the suit was dismissed on the ground that Gaya was party to a compromise during a litigation in 1861 and was therefore estopped from suing Sukhdeo and others for recovery of the property whose succession opened out on the death of Mt. Richhpali. The litigation in 1863 arose when two other widows of the family Mt. Jaddu and Mt. Reshma had died. Several parties applied for mutation of names whereupon a compromise was effected on 9th January 1863. Gaya and his cousin Jaddu who were then minors under the guardianship of a female were given the property which was in the possession of Mt. Reshma whereas Rambhajan, ancestor of Sukhdeo defendant received the property left by Mt. Jaddu and also ...
Mt. Wahidan Vs. Nasir Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All434a
Sen, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was originally instituted by Mt. Munni, minor daughter of Nasir Khan through one Mashir Baksh, who claimed to be the guardian and sarparast of the minor. The claim related to a moiety share in a house situate in mohalla Panni Gali in the city of Agra and to mesne profits.2. Mt. Munni died on 7th September 1926 and the suit was continued by her father Nasir Khan.3. The house in dispute belonged to Mt. Wahidan defendant-appellant and Nawab Khan who is the pro forma respondent is the husband of this lady. They have a son of the name of Farid Khan who is no party to this suit.4. On 10th March 1923, Mt. Wahidan in contemplation and consideration of Mt. Munni's marriage with her son Farid Khan sold an undivided moiety of the house to Mt. Munni for Rs. 500. Though no marriage had taken place, the amount of dower appears to have been settled for Rs. 500. A formal deed was executed, which was duly registered.5. Mt. Munni was married to Fari...
Khelari and ors. Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All434
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court setting aside an order of the first Court returning the plaint for presentation to proper Court. As the question involved is whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, this would be a matter relating to jurisdiction if the Court below has acted illegally or with material irregularity. A civil revision would, therefore, lie.2. The suit admittedly relates to a large number of agricultural holdings only. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs attempted to eject the defendants through the revenue Court, alleging that they were subtenants. The revenue Court found that they were not subtenants but were tenants-in-chief, being in possession of undivided property as members of one family, and dismissed the ejectment suits. The plaintiffs now in their plaint repeat their case that the defendants are in possession as subtenants, the plots having been allotted to the plaintiffs under a p...
Gambhir Singh and anr. Vs. Surendra Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All455; 129Ind.Cas.373
Dalal, J.1. The District Judge has wrongly refused jurisdiction. His attention does not appear to have been drawn to the provisions of Section 248(3), Agra Tenancy Act. What happened in the present case was this. A suit for recovery of arrears of rent was dismissed by an Assistant Collector of the Second Class on the ground that the plaintiffs had no rights in the sir land. This was the contention raised both by the tenants and by the other defendants who were zamindars. Clearly a question of proprietary title was raised. The plaintiffs went in appeal to the Collector, and he held that the plaintiffs and the zamindar-defendants were jointly proprietors of the sir land and that, therefore, the plaintiff's were entitled to sue for recovery of rent. The suit was, therefore, remanded under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. This was an order, and an appeal has been provided from an order of the Collector under Section 248(3), Agra Tenancy Act. The provisions of the section run as follows:An app...
Abdul Rauf Khan Vs. Mt. Qamrunnissa and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All542
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order setting aside a sale on appeal. The sale was fixed originally for 18th January 1928 and the usual proclamation for sale had been issued The estimated price given in it was Rs. 2,350. The usual notice had been issued to the judgment-debtor but she did not appear to question the accuracy of the proclamation sale. She got an order of the Court postponing the sale to 26th January 1928. The sale took place on the last mentioned date and the property was sold for Rs. 2,550, i.e., for a price slightly above the estimated price. The judgment-debtor applied under Order 21, Rule 90 for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and substantial injury by reason of it. The first Court dismissed the application holding that neither the one nor the other was proved. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal to the District Judge who appointed two commissioners to value the property. Their report was that the house in qu...
Fateh Singh and anr. Vs. Prithi Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All426a
Sulaiman, J1. These three appeals are connected and arise out of two suits for pre-emption. The first was to preempt a sale deed and the second to preempt a deed of exchange which was taken during the pendency of the former suit. The defendant pleaded that by virtue of this deed of exchange they had become cosharers in the mahal and were entitled to resist the claim. The plaintiff on the other hand alleged that the deed of exchange was really a deed of sale. Both the Court below have treated this deed as one of sale on the ground that the land transferred by the vendee was the proprietary interest in certain rent-free grants which were yielding no income and that Rs. 65 was secretly paid by the vendee in consideration for the land which he acquired. The Courts below have not held that the transfer of the proprietary interest in the rent-free grant was a bogus and fictitious transaction the proprietary interest not passing. What they have thought is that because cash also was paid the t...
Bismillah Begam and ors. Vs. TahsIn Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All462
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the property in suit is endowed property and is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of decrees held by the defendants. The plaintiff relies on a wakfnama executed by himself on 16th July 1924. The wakf is in favour of his descendants and he has constituted himself the mutawalli of the property for his lifetime. The defendants challenged the validity of this dedication and pleaded that the deed had been executed fraudulently with the intention of defeating and delaying his creditors and was not binding on the defendants. Objections had been raised by the plaintiff Tahsin Ali Khan in the execution department which were decided against him; hence this suit.2. The learned Subordinate Judge in a very short judgment has found the validity of the wakfnama in favour of the plaintiff. He has based his conclusion entirely on the oral evidence and has altogether ignored the documentary evidence that ...
Syed HusaIn Vs. Syed Hamid and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All577
Banerji, J.1. This is an application in revision filed by Syed Husain, one of the trustees of a Mahomedan Trust relating to a mosque at Jaunpore. In the year 1927 an application was presented to the District Judge by seven persons for permission to institute a suit against the applicant and to others under Section 18, Act 20 of 1863. The learned District Judge holding that there was a sufficient prima facie ground for instituting the suit granted permission to the applicants.2. Against that order the present revision has been filed and it is contended by the learned advocate for the applicant that as no prima facie ground has been made out, the learned District Judge should have held an inquiry and after coming to a conclusion on the evidence before him given his decision. We are of opinion that Section 13 does not require any elaborate inquiry and it is specifically laid down there that the Court on a perusal of the application shall determine whether there are sufficient prima facie ...
Emperor Vs. Kanhaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All481
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government. A dacoity was committed on 25th October 1928, as a result of which 7 men were put on trial on charges of dacoity and convicted and they have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. The present accused Kanhaiya, against whose acquittal the Local Government have appealed in this case, was put on trial in the prior case on a charge of abetment and acquitted. The learned Judge was of opinion that the charge of abetment must fail, that charge being founded on evidence of acts prior to the dacoity. He was of opinion, however, that Kanhaiya was undoubtedly guilty of the charge of harbouring, but held, and we think in view of the facts, rightly, that he could not in that trial convict Kanhaiya under Section 216-A.I.P.C. Subsequently Kanhaiya has been put on trial under Section 216-A, has been acquitted, and the Local Government have appealed. There can, of course, be no question but that the opinion of the learned Judge who ...
Kuar Lakshmiraj Singh and ors. Vs. Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All513
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion it ia important to determine in this case whether the property sold was moveable or immovable. The decree-holders had sued for recovery of possession of a certain plot of land by removal of the materials of the house of the defendants standing thereon. During the pendency of the appeal here the defendants judgment-debtors deposited costs and rent which had been decreed against them. This Court decided in favour of the plaintiffs whereupon the plaintiffs decree-holders applied at one and the same time for possession of the land for attachment of the house of the defendants in order to recover costs of the first two Courts. No notice was issued as the High Court decree was passed within one year of the application for execution and attachment of the house was ordered. The house was attached on 14th September 1927, and on the same day the decree-holders applied for sale of the house. When this application was filed it was the duty of the Court to take action unde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »