Allahabad Court March 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.
Kashi Prasad Vs. Ambika Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All611
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court and the only question for the decision is what is the legal effect of the decision said to have been given under Section 42, Land Revenue Act2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows: One Mahesh Prasad was recorded in the revenue papers as the occupancy tenant of certain holdings. He was a first cousin of the plaintiff Kashi Prasad and his brother Bindeshri Prasad. In the lifetime of Mahesh Prasad his sister's three sons, Ambika Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad and Kedar Prasad who were the first three defendant in the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, made an application to the revenue Court to have their names recorded along with that of Mahesh Prasad, on the ground that they were Mahesh Prasad's sister's sons and were joint in cultivation with him. Bindeshri Prasad, defendant 4 in the suit, who is the elder of the two brothers, namely himself and Kashi Prasad, filed a...
Shakur Vs. B. Sanwal Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All630
Niamatullah, J.1. For facts of the case in controversy between the parties to this appeal, see my order of remand dated 6th December 1929. The finding returned by the lower appellate Court on the issue remitted by that order is as follows:I hold that the plaintiff, who is 'lambardar' collects rents from the tenants, pays the Government revenue and is entitled to eject tenants and sue for enhancement of rents in respect of the land of village Kariawan included in mahal Malih Khan.2. It is not disputed by the respondent that he has extended his possession to the land adjoining the site of his house as it originally was. The plaintiff claims demolition of the defendant's house so far as it encroaches on such land. It has not been alleged by the defendant, much less proved, that he obtained the permission of any of the co-sharers for building on the land which was outside the site of his house. The question, therefore, is between the 'lambardar' of the 'mahal' within which the land in disp...
Maheshrey Tewari Vs. Jarbandhan Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All885
Boys, J.1. Mr. Harnandan Prasad on behalf of the appellant has given us the fact of this case in detail and has proposed to raise four points before us: one based on Section 115, Evidence Act; another on Section 43, T.P. Act; a third in reference to the alleged assumption of both the lower Courts that a 20 pies share must be taken to be owned in equal halves by two ladies; and finally a question of the burden of proof. It has to be admitted however that no point was made in the grounds of appeal taken to the lower appellate Court in regard to either of first three matters. In regard to the fourth, it is possible to more than suggest that the point was taken; but admittedly it cannot carry the appellant any further if he cannot succeed on either of the first three points. It having to be admitted that neither of the first three points was taken before the lower appellate Court, and we may here mention that we are informed that both Courts have agreed in their findings on all points, the...
Bhagwati Saran Vs. Ram Sahai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.19
1. Only two points are urged before us in this appeal. One is that the Judge's finding that the award was produced from proper custody cannot be supported. Section 90 of the Evidence Act says that if the Court is satisfied that the document is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, then the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act shall apply. It is perfectly clear here from these words in the particular case that the question of whether the custody is proper or not cannot be determined by any general principles but is one, as the law declares it to be, to be determined on the facts 'of the particular case.' The Judge has held that the custody of the award was perfectly proper custody. He has given a good reason for that finding. There is no force in this plea.2. The next point taken is that when the award gave the defendant a shop with the balakhana above it that must be taken to mean the whole balakhana situated not only above that shop...
inayatulla Vs. Madari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All474
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that he was a co-sharer and was joint in the property transferred with the vendor and that he claimed pre-emption. He also stated:The plaintiff has a right of pre-emption according to the Act in force.2. He nowhere alleged that the defendants were strangers to the mahal, nor did he in express terms say that he had a preferential right as against the defendants, though this might be implied from the fact that he was suing to pre-empt them. When the written statement was filed, no plea was taken that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action. Later it was noticed that the plaint was silent as regards the exact status of the defendants. The plaintiff then applied to the Court of first instance for an amendment of the plaint in order to make it clear that the defendants were perfect strangers and the plaintiff had a preferential right as against them. The learned Muns...
Bhagwat Rai and ors. Vs. Behari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All576
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must fail. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain a declaration of title to a certain land, and in the alternative, they asked for possession. The suit was decreed in part by the Court of first instance and an appeal against that decree by the defendants was dismissed. The defendants filed a second appeal. The learned single Judge before whom the appeal came decided the question of res judicata in favour of the defendants but found that the plaintiff's allegation that he had all along been in possession of the property had not been gone into. Accordingly, the learned single Judge remanded an issue in the following language:Did Chit Bahal or his representatives subsequently acquire title by adverse possession extending over 12 years in, respect of the one eighth share which was given to Padarath and Bharosa under the decree of 1868, and prior to their recently obtaining the decree for profits from the revenue C...
Mohammad Qadir Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Ghulam Imam Khan and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All605
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by five defendants against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra passed in a suit for partition. The family tree is as follows:(See Table on p. 606)2. The property in the plaint of which plaintiff Ghulam Imam asks for a share on partition consists of four houses. List A comprises three houses which really form one house, and of these houses No. 1 is called bara haveli and house No. 2 is called middle house and house No. 3 is called the diwan khana. List B comprises the 4th house which is called the chhapakhana. All these houses are adjacent and all bear the same number in the Municipal Register No. 2507. The case for the plaintiff in the plaint is that Mohammad Zaman Khan, his grandfather, and the grandfather of the five appellants, purchased the property in list A, and that the house in list B now known as chhapakhana was purchased by Mt. Zahuran, the widow of Mohammad Zaman Khan. The first question which has been urged before us on appe...
Baldeo Prasad Vs. Arya Priti Nidhi Sabha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All643
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of immovable property by setting aside a deed of trust executed by Amar Singh, the nephew of the plaintiff Baldeo Prasad. According to the plaint Amar Singh gave up the world in December 1920, and adopted faqiri sanyas in January 1921, and was named Sanyasi Amirtanand; that in consequence all his rights in his property became extinct and the same reverted to his relations. But admittedly on 24th January 1921 he executed the deed of trust in favour of the respondent Sabha, which is an Arya Samaj institution. According to the plaintiff the deed of trust was null and void inasmuch as on the date of its execution Amar Singh had no longer any right or interest left in him. The defendants contested the suit by denying that Amar Singh had ever renounced the world and given up his rights in the property or that he had completely become a Sanyasi. It was further pleaded that he was a Vaish by caste and ...
R. Saigal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All401
Boys, J.1. This is an application under Section 99-B, Criminal P. C, by which the applicant takes objection to orders of the Local Government under Section 99A, Criminal P. C, declaring every copy of a book and of the advertisement thereof forfeited to His Majesty.2. The book is entitled 'Bharat men Angarezi Rajya.' The author is one Sriyut Sundar Lal, B.A., ex-editor of the 'Karmayogi' and the 'Bhavishya.' The book is written in Hindi.R. Saigal is the printer and publisher, and it was published at the Fine Art Printing Cottage, 28, Elgin Road, Allahabad. In the advertisement of the book it is described as a:compilation from the English books 'Rise of Christian Power in India,' 'The consolidation of the Christian Power in India,' and 'Ruin of Indian Trade and Industries' of the well-known historian Major Baman Das Basu, I.M.S., and from other authentic historical works.3. The applicant before us is the printer and publisher R. Saigal, whose case has been put before us by Dr. Katju. The...
Kishen Lal Vs. Peare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All865; 125Ind.Cas.765
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, who dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's suit and thereby restored the decree of the first Court.2. It appears that the respondent Pearey Lal held a mortgage, made in his favour, on 12th of May, 1904, by two persons Mahbub Ali and Shahzadi Begum. These judgment-debtors mortgaged certain specified shares as their property with Pearey Lal. In due course Pearey Lal brought his suit for sale, and to that suit he made parties not only the judgment-debtors themselves but also their representatives, among whom were included the present plaintiff's father Gauga Sahai, who was impleaded on the ground that he had purchased a portion of the mortgaged property. At some stage of the suit Ganga Sahai died, and in his place the appellant's name was substituted as a party. The decree that was passed was in respect of '5 sihams with the exception of the property mortgaged under the deed of 6th of February, 190...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›