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.
Har Lal Singh Alias Kalaktar Singh and anr. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.687
Pullan, J.1. The original plaintiff in this suit was one Rohan Singh. He came before the Oourt as being the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Raghunath Singh. This Raghunath Sineh had died leaving a widow Musammat Kaunsilla who is still alive. On the 3rd of 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 Musammat 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 ...
Ahmad Zaman Khan Vs. Baldeo Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All228
Niamattulah, J.1. On the issues remitted by our order, dated 18th March 1930, the learned District Judge, has found that the plaintiff did not acquire any right in that half of the house No. 4912 which originally belonged to Imamuddin. He thought no finding was necessary on the question of adverse possession. We have considered the grounds on which the finding of the learned Judge proceeds and heard the learned Counsel at great length. We are unable to accept the finding of the learned District Judge in its entirety. He has found that the half share of Imamuddin in the aforesaid house was in possession of Mt. Narain Dei, as heiress to one Salig Ram, who was a usufructuary mortgagee of the house. The learned Counsel for the parties have not been able to give us the date and particulars of this mortgage. The learned advocate for the contesting respondent has urged that besides the usufructuary mortgage there were certain simple mortgages in favour of Salig Ram in respect of Imamuddin's s...
Mangal Ram Seho Ram Vs. Jagar Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All556
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Basti directing that a plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. By an error of counsel in this Court the case has been presented in this Court as a regular second appeal from a decree. The facts are that the plaintiff who resided in Basti sent certain grain to Fyzabad, and that grain was sold by the defendants in Fyzabad, and the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Basti for recovery of the price of the grain. One of the defences raised was that the Court in Basti had no jurisdiction to try this suit as the cause of action arose solely in Fyzabad.. The learned Munsif held that his Court in Basti had jurisdiction to try this suit, because there was a novation of contract on account of certain letters which subsequently passed between the parties. The learned Munsif decreed the suit in part for the plaintiff. The defendants brought an appe...
Mufti Mohammad Baqar and anr. Vs. Namwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All660
Boys, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption two other suits for redemption by other plaintiffs having been also filed and tried along with Suit No. 289 of 1928 out of which this appeal arises. It will be necessary to state the facts with precision. Maula Koeri owned a fixed rate and occupancy tenancy. He died and his widow Mt. Jamuni executed a usufructuary mortgage on 23rd October 1905, in favour of one Ramlal. On Mt. Jamuni's death there were three claimants to the property: firstly, Bishnath Koeri, who claimed to be a daughter's son of Mula Koeri; secondly, Sukhu Koeri, who claimed to be a collateral of Mula Koeri; and thirdly, the zamindars who claimed that the property had lapsed to them. None of these three claimants thought fit to endeavour directly to establish his claim to the property. Bach of them decided to secure his position, if possible, by filing a suit to redeem the mortgage. All three accordingly filed separate suits against the heirs of Ramlal, the mor...
(Lala) Dila Ram Vs. Kura Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All289
Mukerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises under the following circumstances: The pedigree will be found at p.7 of the printed record. The plaintiff, Dila Ram is a sister's son to Relu. Mal, The property in suit belonged to Relu Mai. He died in 1908 and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Pari who died in 1924. Dila Ram claimed the property as the heir of Relu Mai. The claim was directed against the daughter of Rula Mal's brother Hardhian Singh, namely, Mt. Parsand, her husband Kura Mai and four sons of Mt. Parsandi.2. The defendants met the claim by the allegation that Relu Mul in his lifetime executed a tamliknama in 1899 by which he gave his entire property after his death and after the death of his widow to one Nanu Mal and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to the property, he not being an heir of Nanu Mal.3. The learned Subordinate Judge took down the statement of (he parties before framing issued an 1 he also examined Kura Mal, the husband of Mt. Parsandi The pl...
Suba Gobind Rai and ors. Vs. Mt. Anar Koer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All349
Niamatullah, J.1. This application-raises a somewhat novel question. One Jagat Gobind Rai was one of several defendants in a suit instituted by certain persons as plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 10th December 1928. On appeal the suit was decreed on 29th April 1929 by the lower appellate Court. Jagat Gobind Rai preferred a second appeal, the other co-defendants not joining with him as appellants. Thus Jagat Gobind Rai was the sole appellant in the second appeal. Jagat Gobind Rai died on 30th October 1929. No application for his legal representatives being brought on the record was made within the ninety days-allowed by law. An application subsequently made for substitution was dismissed as time barred and the appeal declared to have abated. The present application has been made by the co-defendants of Jagat Gobind Rai on the allegation that they were pro forma respondents in the second appeal preferred by Jagat Gobind Rai for the benefit of himself and his co-de...
Sudeshwari Prasad NaraIn Singh Vs. Paljhan Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All722
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal against an order striking off an application for execution on the ground that it was time barred. At the time the application came up before me for determination as to whether it was a fit application to be admitted for hearing I expressed my grave doubts as to its fitness at the time. I however admitted the application for hearing because it seemed then, though not now, cognate to those cases in which the bona fides of an application for execution has been considered when determining whether a subsequent application was barred by limitation. My own view and that of Banerji, J., as to the propriety of considering the bona fides of a previous application when determining the question of limitation had been overruled by a Bench of three Judges. I was therefore loath to refuse admission to this appeal unless I was satisfied that such refusal would be in no way in conflict with that Full Bench decision.2. There can in fact be no doubt but that in this case the ...
Mt. Ajazi Begam and anr. Vs. Mt. Latifan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All113
Mukerji, J.1. The facts relating to this appeal are as follows: One Ajazi Begam, who purchased a certain portion of the interest inherited in a house by one Ahmad Khan, brought a suit for partition against Ahmad Khan and his two sisters, Latifan and Fatma. A preliminary decree was passed, and it was followed by a final decree. After the final decree had been made the three defendants put in an application before the original Court asking that the ex parte decrees might be set aside on the ground that the defendants had no notice of the suit. The learned Munsif dismissed the application. The defendants filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed on the ground that after the preliminary decree for partition and before the final decree for partition was made, a fresh notice ought to have been issued to the defendants. In so holding' the learned Subordinate Judge professed to follow a ruling of this Court. In the result the learned appellate Judge set aside the order dismissing the application...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›