Allahabad Court November 1932 Judgments
Abdul Rashid Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All206; 145Ind.Cas.461
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to and for joint possession over the properties detailed at the foot of the plaint. The plaintiff also claimed mesne profits. The parties to the present litigation are descended from a common ancestor named Lal Muhammad. Lal Muhammad died leaving eight sons: LAL MUHAMMAD | ______________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | | Sabit Safdar Qadir Nadir Afzal Abdul Abdul AbdulAli died Ali died Baksh died Ali died Ali died Latif died Wahid died Ghafur died1881. 1882. 1887. 1893. 1898. April 1905. July 1905. 1918.2. The eight sons mentioned above died in the years noted against their names. A complete pedigree of the family is to be found at P. 6 of the printed record.3. The plaintiff-appellant before us is one of the sons of Afzal Ali and of the contesting defendants Sirajuddin, defendant 1, is the own brother of the plaintiff-appellant. The ot...
Tag this Judgment!Kallan and ors. Vs. Mohammad Nabi Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All775
Bennet. J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants 1, 3, and 4 against a decree of the lower appellate Court granting the plaintiff possession of a certain house. The suit of the plaintiff was brought on 31st July 1929 on a sale-deed dated 23rd May 1929, by defendant 2, Mst. Ahmadi Begam, of the house in question along with other property to the plaintiff. The plaint set forth that defendant 1, Kallan, was a tenant of the vendor Mst. Ahmadi Begam paying rent to her and liable to be ejected at any time. The plaintiff issued a notice on 6th June 1929 to defendant 1 to vacate the house and defendant 1 sent a reply denying that he was a tenant and alleging that he was the owner. The written statement' of defendant 1 was that he was the absolute owner of the house and had been in adverse proprietary possession for more than 17 years and that Mst. Ahmadi Begam had never been in possession and had never been the owner of the house. Subsequently, theparties made statements under Order 10, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Mohan Lal Vs. Tasadduq HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All233; 145Ind.Cas.572
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for enforcement of a mortgage-deed dated 4th June 1917, executed by one Ali Bakhsh, who has since died and is now represented by his son, Sheikh Tasadduq Husain, and his two daughters, Mt. Piari and Rashidan, defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 4 and 5 are transferees from the heirs of the mortgagor. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the mortgage-deed is invalid, not having been registered in the manner required by the Registration Act. Ali Bakhsh was an old man residing n Rampur and suffering from illness, which prevented his appearance before the State registering officer. The property to which the mortgage-deed relates is village Bhikaripur, Tahsil Baheri, District Bareilly, in British India. The mortgage-deed had to be registered by the Sub-Registrar of Baheri. Ali Bakhsh executed the mortgage-deed in Rampur, and in order to have it registered at Baheri he executed a power-of-attorney ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Brahai Vs. Mt. Kishen Dei
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All288
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This second appeal raises an important point of law, and there is unfortunately no case decided by a Bench of this Court which may be directly to the point. The point raised is whether a raiyat in a village abadi in this part of the country has a right to construct a building on land which he was using as an outer 'sahan' appurtenant to his house. The plaintiff, who is a zamindar, came with the allegation that the defendant had constructed a building without her consent, and sought the ejectment of the tenant from the land and demolition of the building. The learned Judge of the appellate Court found that a part of the building was old, that the rest was new and that the new portion had been erected on what had been the defendant's 'sahan' or court-yard, outside the house. On this finding he decreed the suit. In this Court it has been contended that a raiyat is entitled to build on the open space which he enjoys as his court-yard appurtenant to his house. 2. Before ...
Tag this Judgment!Khim Chand Vs. Keshar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All403; 147Ind.Cas.201
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an execution of decree appeal which arises in the following circumstances: Before 1st April 1926 all suits of a civil nature in Kumaun Division were cognizable by an Assistant Collector from whose decision an appeal lay to the Deputy Commissioner and a second appeal to the Commissioner who exercised the powers of a High Court. The appellant instituted a suit for recovery of Rupees 580 on foot of a promissory note in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Almora in Kumaun and obtained a decree for Rs. 423 on 5th July 1927. The defendant appealed to the Deputy Commissioner. His appeal was dismissed. 'He preferred a second appeal to the Commissioner which was fixed for hearing on 19th March 1928. The record of the case was however lost in transit. It appears that a large number of other records were lost in similar circumstances. The Commissioner passed an order on 19th April 1928 directing that 'the appellant should bring a fresh claim.' We are informed that th...
Tag this Judgment!Musi Imran Vs. Ibne Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All341; 147Ind.Cas.835
Bennet, J.1. These are three Second Appeals Nos. 434, 435 and 758 of 1930, arising out of three cases. The pedigree of the family is as follows: ALIALI | ____________________________________________________________ | | | | | | Ali Moosi Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt.Imran. Imran. Bint Moha- Saira Iffatun- Sakina. madi Begam. nissa. Begam.2. Mt. Bint Sakina was the daughter of Aliali by his second wife, and his other children were by his first wife. Mt. Bint Sakina married Ibne Hasan, who is the respondent in these second appeals. Mt. Bint Sakina died on 9th June 1925. On 25th June 1925, she executed a deed of relinquishment of her dower, which amounted to Rupees 25,000, and on 6th June 1925, she executed a deed of gift of all her immovable property, in favour of her husband, the respondent. By these two documents she disposed of all her estate. It is the deed of gift which is in question in S.A. No. 758 of 1930. The question which has been raised in Second Appeals Nos. 434; and 435 of 1930 is whether...
Tag this Judgment!Chandramani Vs. Mathura Datt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All216; 145Ind.Cas.379
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a pre-emption appeal and the appellant is the pre-emptor. The appellant and the vendor are uterine brothers. The purchasers-are a third party, strangers to the family. The suit was resisted on two grounds, namely, the sale was effected with the consent of the plaintiff and secondly the plaintiff and the vendor formed a joint Hindu family, and therefore, according to a ruling of this Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The lower appellate Court held that it was not proved that the plaintiff was a consenting party to the sale. But it held that the plaintiff and the vendor were members of a joint Hindu family as governed by the Mitakshara law, and therefore the plaintiff was out of Court. In this Court it has been urged that in Kumaun Mitakshara law does not prevail in its strictness and reliance has been placed on the book known as Kumaun Local Customs, the author of which is Mr. Panna Lall, I.C.S. Mr. Panna Lall. was especially deputed...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Singh Vs. Ch. Hargyan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All217; 145Ind.Cas.396
Mukerji, Ag. C.J.1. This is a pre-emption appeal and raises an interesting point of law. The facts briefly are as follaws: One Bholu sold his property to Baldeo Singh by a sale-deed, dated 1st October 1928. The plaintiff. Hargyan Singh, brought a suit to preempt this property on 4th September 1929. Prior to the institution of the suit the vendee, Baldeo Singh, in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim procured a gift in his favour of a share of property situated in the same khewat and same mahal as the property sold to him on 1st October 1928 by a deed of gift, dated 9th July 1929. As the deed of gift was not an indefeasible transfer, according to the rulings of this Court and within the meaning of Section 20, Agra Pre-emption Act, he hit upon another device to defeat the plaintiffs' claim. This was an exchange by which on 16th October 1929 he obtained a share in the same khewat and mahal in which the preempted property was situated. The plaintiff was a cosharer in the same mahal in whi...
Tag this Judgment!(Lala) Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All303; 145Ind.Cas.756
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the concurrent decrees of the two lower Courts decreeing a sum of money in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants' property, with the direction that the decree shall not be executed against the person of the defendants. The plaint sets forth the cause of action which is somewhat lengthy as follows: Lala Sukhdeo Prasad, the ancestor and the father of the plaintiffs, on 9th June 1914, took a lease of certain property for 11 years paying the premium of Rs. 13,000 to Rani Durga Kunwar of Kashipur of certain property. On 25th September 1914, Lala Chhedi Lal, ancestor of the defendants, took a similar lease of other property for Rs. 12,000 premium from the same lady for the same period of 11 years. This was in possession of the estate of her husband as a Hindu widow. But one Kunwar Anand Singh brought a suit in 1916 against her for possession of the estate on the ground that he had been adopted by her husband, and he als...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmadi Begam Vs. Munshi Ishaq Mohammad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All292; 145Ind.Cas.872
Bajpai, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the auction purchaser decree-holder against an order of the Court below setting aside a certain sale under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 89, Penal Code. It is not necessary to state the facts in greater detail than is necessary to make our judgment intelligible. It appears that Bibi Ahmadi Begam obtained a decree against Ishaq Muhammad for a large sum of money and in execution of that decree certain properties belonging to the judgment-debtor were advertised for sale. On 23rd June 1931, the judgment-debtor brought a sum of Rs. 5,000 in Court and under the orders of the Court the said sum was received towards the decretal amount. We have on the record of this case the tender evidencing such a deposit. The sale however was held on that very date because certain communications that were intended to reach the amin could not reach in time. On 22nd August 1931, however this sale was set aside and a fresh sale was ordered to be held on 24th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »