Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Zubeda Bibi vs Sheo Charan on 12 July, 1899

Ram Brichh Singh And Anr. vs Chhakauri Singh And Anr. on 27 November, 1924

12. It appears that since the mortgage, the mortgagee in possession planted trees on the land. The plaintiffs' contention is that on payment of the mortgage-money they are entitled not only to the land, but also to the trees. The Court of first instance, while decreeing the claim for redemption, decided' that so long as the trees stood, the defendants' possession over the trees would continue. The learned District Judge did not express any opinion on this point because in his opinion the whole suit for redemption failed. In this Court, in support of the plaintiffs' contention, two cases have been cited. One is the case of Zubsda Bibi v. Sheo Charan (1899) 22 All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Thakur Chauharja Singh vs Sarabjit on 30 May, 1912

The present case appears to me to be covered rather by the decisions in Zuheda Bibi v. Sheo Charan 22 A. 83 and Humid Ali Shah v. Wilayat Ali 22 A. 93, than by the decision in Narain Singh v. Gobind Ram 8 A.L.J. 431 : 33 A. 523 : 9 Ind. Cas. 1022 and I hold, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present suit. On the last occasion when this case was remanded, the Subordinate Judge was directed to determine the remaining issues. Had he done so, I might have disposed of the case now. He has determined only the question of jurisdiction. I set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to that Court with directions to readmit the appeal to its original number and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and in the lower Appellate Court will be the costs in the cause.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jagar Nath And Anr. vs Ajudhya Singh on 2 November, 1912

2. It seems to me that the question of title to a tenancy, arising between rival claimants to that tenancy, is a question which is cognizable by a Civil Court. This has been decided, I think, in principle in the case of Zubeda Bibi v. Sheo Charan 22 A. 83 in the case of Hamid Ali Shah v. Wilayat Ali 22 A. 93 and in the case of Bhup v. Ram Lal 33 A. 795; 8 A.L.J. 1009 : 11 Ind. Cas. 26833 A. 795 : 8 A.L.J. 1009 : 11 Ind. Cas. 268. The learned Judge of this Court says: "Before I can hold that the defendant, who admittedly was till recently a tenant of some kind, has become a trespasser, I must hold that he was wrong in claiming to be an occupancy-tenant of the land. I cannot decide that he was wrong in claiming to be an occupancy-tenant without trenching on the jurisdiction of the Rent Court. The question whether a person is a tenant at-will or an occupancy-tenant is one in respect of which a suit can be brought under the Tenancy Act and the decision is reserved exclusively for the Revenue Court". I cannot altogether agree with what the learned Judge has stated above. It is quite true that if a person was claiming to be an occupancy-tenant, whilst his landlord was contending that he was a mere tenant-at-will, this would be a question exclusively triable by the Revenue Court. But that is not the question in the present suit. The question in the present suit is,--"to whom does the tenancy belong; does it belong to the plaintiffs or to the defendant?" If the tenancy belongs to the plaintiffs, then they are clearly entitled to treat the defendant as a trespasser, having regard to the plea that he put forward in the Revenue Court in which he to tally denied their title and claimed that he alone was the occupancy-tenant. If on the other hand, the tenancy belongs to the defendant, it is quite clear that the plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed. It has been contended that the present suit is of the nature mentioned in Section 95 of the Tenancy Act, In my opinion, it is only necessary to read the opening words of that section to see that the section deals with questions arising between landlord and tenant and that it does not in any way apply to rival claimants to any of the various classes of tenants mentioned in the Tenancy Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jagan Nath And Anr. vs Ajudhia Singh on 12 November, 1912

2. It seems to me that the question of title to a tenancy arising between rival claimants to that tenancy is a question which is cognizable by a civil court. This has been decided, I think, in principle in the case of Zubeda Bibi v. Sheo Charan (1899) I.L.R., 22 All., 88, in the case of Hamid Ali Shah v. Wilayat Ali (1899) I.L.R., 23 All, 98 and in the case of Bhup v. Ram Lal (1911) I.L.R., 88 All.,795. The learned judge of the Court says: Before I can hold that the defendant who admittedly was till recently a tenant of some kind, has become a trespasser, I must hold that he was wrong in claiming to be an occupancy tenant of the land. I can not decide that he was wrong in claiming to be an occupancy tenant without trenching on the jurisdiction of the rent court. The question whether a person is a tenant at will or an occupancy tenant is one in respect of which a suit can be brought under the Tenancy Act and the decision is reserved exclusively for the revenue court." I cannot altogether agree with what the learned Judge has stated above. It is quite true that if a person was claiming to be an occupancy tenant, whilst his landlord was contending that he was a mere tenant-at-will, this would be a question exclusively triable by the revenue court. But that is not the question in the present suit. The question in the present suit is, to whom does the tenancy belong, does it belong to the plaintiffs or the defendant?' If the tenancy belongs to the plaintiffs, then they are clearly entitled to treat the defendant as a trespasser, having regard to the plea that he put forward in the revenue court, in which he totally denied their title and claimed that he alone was the occupancy tenant. If on the other hand, the tenancy belongs to the defendant, it is quite clear that the plaintiffs' suit must be dismissed. It has been contended that the present suit is of the nature mentioned in Section 95 of the Tenancy Act. In my opinion it is only necessary to read the opening words of that section to see that the section deals with questions arising between landlord and tenant and that it does not. in any way apply to rival claimants to any of the various classes of tenancy mentioned in the Tenancy Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1