Allahabad Court May 1924 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.
Chedda Vs. Achhu Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All572; 84Ind.Cas.117
1. Only one point arises for decision in this appeal. The appellant was a tenant in the village which admittedly has not been partitioned. It is alleged that some sort of private arrangement had been come to between the co-sharers under which the plots occupied by the appellant had fallen to the lot of Achhu Singh, the defendant-respondent. The appellant failed to pay his rent and Achhu Singh dispossessed him. The appellant filed a suit against Achhu Singh and certain others for possession and mesne profits in the Civil Court. The learned Munsif decreed his suit holding that he had jurisdiction and that the suit was not barred by Section 79 of the Tenancy Act. The lower Appellate Court has come to the opposite conclusion on the subject of jurisdiction and has taken the view that the respondent Achhu Singh being a co-sharer in the patti is a landlord of the present appellant within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. It has accordingly held that the Civil Court has no jurisdict...
Harish Chandra and ors. Vs. Musammat Kastola Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.743
1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The mortgage was executed in the year 1889. Under the twelve years limitation laid down by the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai 30 M. 426 : 9 Bom. L.R. 1104 : 4 A.L.J. 625 : 11 C.W.N. 1005 : 6 C.L.J. 379 : 2 M.L.T. 333 : 17 M.L.J. 444 : 84 I.A. 186 (P.C.) the suit would have been time-barred. The legislature, however, by Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908 extended limitation to period of sixty years from the date when the money became payable or two years from the passing of the Act whichever period first expired. This period expired in the case of the present mortgage on 8th August 1910. Before its expiry, on 24th January 1910, the mortgagor made an admission of liability. He made a subsequent admission on 1st July 1916 within twelve years of the former admission. The suit was filed on 2nd January 1919. The question is whether the acknowledgment of 24th January 1910 was a good acknowledgment within the me...