Allahabad Court January 1931 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.
Amjad Ali and anr. Vs. AzizuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All551
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for mesne profits by the plaintiff-respondents in respect of their share of an occupancy holding comprising 10 bighas 7 biswas held in common by the parties. The sum claimed in the plaint is Rs. 96-10-3. No ancillary relief for accounts was taken. Their claim was dismissed by the first Court but on appeal it was decreed by the lower appellate Court.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a second appeal is barred by Section 102, Civil P. C. It is pointed out that the suit is one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the value does not exceed Rs. 500. A reference to Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, shows that a suit for profits between co-tenants is not excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. The only article which can have a semblance of application is Article 31, which however provides:for the profits on immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which...
Abdul Wahid Vs. B. Ram Krishna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All303
Niamatullah, J.1. Certain zamindari property belonging to the respondent Chandrika Ram was to be sold in execution of a decree of a civil Court. The property was not ancestral, but Government revenue was payable in respect thereof. If it had been ancestral, the execution of decree itself would have taken place in the Collector's office. In case of revenue paying property which is not ancestral, execution proceedings have to take ' place in the Court which passed the decree but the sale has to be made by the Collector. This is what happened in the case before me, and the Collector sold it on 20th July 1929, declaring the appellant Abdul Wahid as the auction-purchaser for a sum of Rs. 700. On 3rd August 1929 Ram Krishna, the transferee of the judgment-debtor deposited Rs. 735 under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., for payment to the decree-holder and the auction-purchaser and for setting aside the auction sale. The sum included the decretal amount together with 5 per cent on the purchase m...
Jairaj Singh and anr. Vs. Mustafai Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All425
Bennet, J. 1. This is a first appeal by Jairaj Singh plaintiff 1 himself and his minor brother Ramdeo Singh plaintiff 2. These two plaintiffs are shown by the pedigree in the plaint at p. 7 of the typed book as being two of the five sons of Madho Singh and as members of a family which had several branches collateral with Madho Singh. The plaintiffs and other branches of the family owned certain property in four villages in Jaunpur District and the share of the family of Madho Singh in those villages was one-fifth. The claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit is that they should be placed in possession of the whole one-fifth share of the family of Madho Singh in these villages and that a deed of mortgage dated 12th June 1919 executed by certain members of the family in favour of defendant 1 should be declared invalid.2. The history of the property in regard to this family is as follows:3. On 17th August 1915 there was a mortgage by conditional sale for Rs. 8,628 executed by Madho Sin...
Jamna Pandey Vs. Sahdeo Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All80
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale deed was taken by the plaintiff's elder brother, Ramraj, and two of his nephews along with certain strangers. The plaintiff's allegation was that he was separate from the other members of his family, inasmuch as partition had taken place four or five years earlier. The defence was that the plaintiff had given his consent to the sale, and also that the property had been purchased by the family on behalf of all the members including the plaintiff. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court has found that the oral evidence to prove that the. plaintiff gave his express consent personally to the sale is not satisfactory, and has accordingly not had that the suit is liable to be dismissed on that ground. It has however found that the plaintiff's case that there was a partition of the family property shortly before the case and that the plaintiff was separate, was not true...
Amjad Ali Khan Vs. Saadat Begum and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All317
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. Certain shares of zamindari property in a village, along with a house in the city of Moradabad, were sold under one sale deed to the defendants. The plaintiff brought his suit to pre-empt the zamindari property by virtue of his right under the Pre-emption Act and to pre-empt the house property under the Mahomedan law. He alleged that he had made the necessary demands required by Mahomedan law. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that he failed to prove that he made the demands which would entitle him to succeed under the Mahomedan law so far as the house was concerned. The first Court dismissed the claim with regard to the house, but decreed it as regards the zamindari property. On appeal the lower appellate Court has dismissed the entire suit. Following the case of Abdul Khan v. Shakira Bibi A.I.R. 1928 All. 121 the lower appellate Court has held that having lost his right to pre-empt the ...
(Siri) NaraIn Tewari and anr. Vs. Brij NaraIn Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All326
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders and the only question raised in the appeal is one relating to limitation.2. Mt. Jokhna Tewarin obtained a decree against a number of persons from the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur in Suit No. 198 of 1911 on 28th August 1912. Amongst the. defendants to the action were Raja Bahadur Brij Narain Rai and Rai Jagdish Narain Rai. The decree passed against them was for delivery of possession of a one anna seven pie and 10 chhatak zamindari share of a village called Kat Kuian. The decree was not unconditional. It provided that the right to possession was contingent upon Mt. Jokhna depositing in the Court to the credit of Brij Narain Rai and Jagdish Narain Rai a sum of Rs. 2,499-15-0. No date for payment of this sum was specified in the decree.3. Mt. Jokhna died. She did not fulfil the condition in her lifetime; nor did she apply for the execution of the decree. The present application for execution was made by her sons a...
ibrahim Khan and anr. Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All405
Pullan, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for profits. The only question is one of limitation. The profits in question wore for the year 1327 fasli and the suit was filed on 31st July 1923. If these profits could have been collected on a date later than 31st July 1920 the suit is within time, but if the last date for the collection of the profits is prior to 31st July 1920 the suit is beyond time. Section 163, Act 2 of 1901, lays down that in the absence of any determination of date by the Settlement Officer or of an express agreement among the cosharers, profits shall be divisible on such dates as the Local Government may prescribe, and the Local Government has prescribed those dates by rules framed under Section 203 of the same Act, The date prescribed by the Local Government is 1st August unless some other date has bean agreed upon by the persons concerned or determined and recorded by a Settlement Officer.2. In the present case the patwari has given evidence that the cos...
Banwari Lal Vs. Gopi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All411
Bennet, J. 1. This is a second appeal by a defendant Banwari Lal, against a decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad who decreed the suit of the plaintiff for sale on a simple mortgage dated 10th April 1912. This deed purports to have bean executed for Rs. 600 by one Mt. Bilaso in favour of Gopi Nath. The plaintiff sued Mangala Prasad as the legatee of Mt. Bilaso under a will. The appellant Banwari Lal applied to be made a defendant and claimed to be a reversioner of this property along with Mangala Prasad on the death of Mt. Bilaso. The last mala owner being Parbhu Lal, the husband of Mt. Bilaso, the defendant claimed that Mt. Bilaso had only the right of a Hindu widow in this property, but the plaintiff claimed that she was the absolute owner and had full power to dispose of the property by will.2. The questions which have been argued before us in appeal are firstly that there was no' finding as to legal necessity and that Mt. Bilaso had only the rights of a Hindu widow, a...
Dharam Dass Vs. Shankar Ahir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All589a
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal in which the point which has been raised before us on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff is that the judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff is not a judgment according to law. The judgment is as follows:The facts are laid out in the judgment of the lower Court. The decision is a reasonable one and as a Court of appeal I am not justified in going against it. Rejected summarily. Sd/- A.H. De B. Hamilton.2. On behalf of the respondent it was argued that this judgment was sufficient for the purpose of dismissal of an appeal summarily under 0, 41, Rule 11. That rules states that, ' the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. '3. But we consider that such an order should be governed by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 which states:The judgment of the appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state: (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (C) the reasons for the decision; and (d)...
Har Lal Singh and anr. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All630a
Pullan, J.1. The original plaintiff in this suit was one Rohan Singh. He came before the Court as being the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Raghunath Singh. This Raghunath Singh had died leaving a widow Mt. Kaunsilla who is still alive. On 3rd July 1914 Kaunsilla gifted the whole of the property which had devolved on her from her husband to her two daughters Nachkande and Bitoli and their respective husbands Hari Singh and Badal Singh. Subsequently both the daughters died and Rohan Singh as the nearest reversionary heir to the estate of Raghunath Singh claimed that on the death of the two daughters the property had devolved upon himself. This was his case, and in order to establish his claim on the death of the daughters he denied that their respective husbands were donees from Mt. Kaunsilla. He made further an alternative claim that, if possession over any portion of the property could not be given to him during the lifetime of Kaunsilla, the gift might be declared to be null...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »