Allahabad Court April 1925 Judgments
Kunwar Meharban Singh Vs. Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.617
Stuart, J.1. This second appeal has arisen in the following manner. On the 14th May 1914 the defendant executed a simple unregistered money bond for good consideration of Rs. 3,999 at 12 per cent, simple interest in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant was not liable to pay the amount till 5th June 1917. On the 3rd June 1920 an endorsement was written on the back of the bond by one Sumer Singh on the, instructions of the plaintiff. This was signed by the defendant. We translate the endorsement as follow:Accounts having been made up, the sum of Rs. 6,500 has resulted as principal and interest in which' (this is a literal translation : the words are jismen) ' a usufructuary mortgage of villag Samogarh for Rs. 4,000 has been executed today : Rs. 10 in cash; have been paid.2. The same day a deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the village Samogarh. This deed it the ' usufructuary mortgage' to which reference is made in the endorsement The deed is no...
Tag this Judgment!Niadar Vs. Ramji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All549
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of an insolvency proceeding. The crops in suit were attached by the receiver in insolvency at the instance of the appellant, Niadar, who is a creditor of the estate. The insolvent, Baldeo, is the brother of Mt. Kesar, the recorded proprietor of the property, but it appears that they are not at present on good terms as there has been a criminal case between them. The crops are claimed by the respondent, Ramji Lal, and the District Judge has decided on the evidence that they were sown by him and belonged to him.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies on the ground that a creditor is not a person aggrieved and, therefore, has no right of appeal. The respondent relies on the decision of this Court in Jhabba Lal v. Shib Charan Das (1917) 39 All. 152. This was a decision under the Act of 1907. Under that Act there was a difference of opinion between this Court and the Madras High Court. This Court held that the receiver was the only person...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz Banu Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All720
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 arising out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant No. 1 was married to him on the 25th of September, 1918 on a deffered dower amounting to Rs. 500 plus 2 dinars by her father acting as her guardian, but that she and her relations, the other defendants, were now refusing to send her to the plaintiff. The defence taken by the defendant appellant was that she was not aware of the alleged marriage, that her father had never consented to it, and that she being a Shiah and the plaintiff being a Sunni, no legal valid marriage could have been contracted and, lastly, that on attaining puberty she had repudiated the marriage.2. The trial Court had decreed the claim. It found that the defendant No. 1 was duly married to the plaintiff and her own father had acted as her guardian. It further found that the marriage of a Shiah with a Sunni was not illegal and had also held that the marriage having...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Shiam Lal Joti Prasad Vs. Dhanpat Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All768
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a suit for accounts against the defendants on the ground that the amount claimed is due to the plaintiff on account of certain business transactions carried on with the defendants through the plaintiff's servant. The defence was that the plaintiff had nothing to do with those transactions at all, but that the business was carried on between Chhitar Mal and the defendants, and that accounts were settled between them. The defendants said that they subsequently discovered that the plaintiff claimed to be a partner. The defendants, however, pleaded that Chhitar Mal should be impleaded as pro forma defendant in the suit.2. The Court of first instance framed an issue (No. 4) as to whether Chhitar Mal was or was not a necessary party. After examining the evidence and the statement of Chhitar Mal, who was examined as a witness, the Court came to the conclusion that the story about Chhitar Mal's interest in the business had been concocted to defra...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Sarvi Begam Vs. L. Ram Chander Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All778
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside a sale on the ground of fraud. The learned Judge has dismissed the application on two grounds : (1) that in view of a previous application under Order 21, Rule 89, having been made and pressed, the present application was not maintainable; and (2) that the allegations contained in the application were not sufficient to bring the case within Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Subordinate Judge without allowing the appellant any opportunity to prove the allegations made by her in the application has dismissed the application after hearing arguments only.2. In execution of a decree, as well as for some further amount of which the decree-holder claimed that he was entitled to a refund, the property in question was put up for sale and sold on the 2lst of January. 1924. No application under Order 21, Rule 90, was made by the judgment-debto within 30 days of this date; but, on the 19th of February 1924, she ...
Tag this Judgment!Aziz Bano Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.690
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No.1 arising out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant No. 1 was married to him on the 25th of September, 1918 on a deferred dower amounting to Rs. 500 plus 2 dinars by her father acting as her guardian, but that she and. her relations, the other defendants, were now refusing to send her to the plaintiff. The defence taken by the defendant-appellant was that she was not aware of the alleged marriage, that her father had never consented to it, and that she being a Shiah and the plaintiff being a Sunni, no legal valid marriage could have been contracted and, lastly, that on attaining puberty she had repudiated the marriage.2. The Trial Court had decreed the claim. It found that the defendant No. 1 was duly married to the plaintiff and her own father had acted as her guardian. It further found that the marriage of a Shiah with a Sunni was not illegal and had also held that the marriage having...
Tag this Judgment!Gulab Dei and anr. Vs. Vaish Motor Company and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All570
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand in a suit brought by Mt. Gulab Dei, on behalf of herself and as guardian of her minor son, against a motor company for accounts. The case was apparently being looked after by her father as her pairokar, and on-the 2nd of August, 1923, when she was not herself present in the Court, the case was compromised on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son on instructions given by her father, Shankar Lal. The Court recorded this compromise and passed a decree in terms of it. Mt. Gulab Dei, for herself and on behalf of her minor son, appealed to the District Judge from this order recording the compromise and urged that she had never given any authority to the compromise being made, that the compromise was not for the benefit of the minor, and that no leave of the Court having been obtained, it was a nullity. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was not clear whether Shankar Lal had authority to enter into the compromise, or t...
Tag this Judgment!Swarath Ram Ram Saran Vs. Ram Ballabh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All595
Mears, C.J.1. The facts of this case will be better understood by a reference to the following pedigree:Hira Lal|-----------------------------------------------| | |Chuni Lal Ram Kumar Ram Gopal| | |--------------- Nandan Lal | | | | Bal Mukand Hansraj | | |Ganga Baksh || | ------------------- || | |Vital Das Nanik Chand |(Deft. 3) (Deft. 4) |-------------------------------------------------------| | | |Ram Ballahb Ram Belas Ram Niwas Hemraj(Deft. 1) (Deft. 2) |Sons2. This is the appeal of the plaintiffs from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Agra in a suit for specific performance. The learned Subordinate Judge decided, for reasons which we shall discuss, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief claimed by them. The plaintiff-firm is known as Swarath Ram-Ram Saran and Sital Prasad is one of the owners of that firm. For many years they had occupied as tenants a godown at Agra. The landlords were the defendants. The defendants in the year 1913 mortgaged this godown toget...
Tag this Judgment!Kallu Mal Dhakkan Lal Vs. Bhawani Das Rekhab Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All742
Stuart, J.1. This is a case in which the plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts from the defendants who were commission agents. The Munsif referred the question of the accounts to a Commissioner. His order referring the case was not exactly in terms of Order 20, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but we may take it for the present purposes that it was an order intended to be under that rule. In view of our opinion on other points, we do not decide this and it is not necessary for us to do so. He ordered that account books should be filed in Court and gave the Commissioner authority to consider those accounts books. Twelve account books were filed and subsequently during the proceedings before the Commissioner four further account books were filed the last of which to be filed is what is known as a 'Sauda Bahi' or a 'transaction account books.' It is in regard to the acceptance of this Sauda Bahi in evidence that a second appeal has been filed in this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Fakir Muhammad Vs. Brij NaraIn Mahrotra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All785
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a guardianship matter. The appellant Faqir Muhammad was appointed guardian, on his own application, of a minor, Muhammad Islam. Along with the application for guardianship he filed a list of the property said to belong to the minor and that list did not contain a house in Cawnpore which has been the subject-matter of much dispute. Subsequently he was removed from the guardianship and the respondent was appointed guardian of the minor. On the 28th of September 1922, the respondent put in an application to the District Judge praying that the former guardian had deliberately omitted from the list the house aforesaid of the rent of which he had given no account whatsoever. We have-had the record examined and it is curious that, without any formal enquiry having been made as to the title to this house, and in spite of the fact that there is third party, Mt. Janno, who rightly or wrongly is asserting her title to it, an order was passed on the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »