Allahabad Court April 1925 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.
Faqir Mohammad Vs. Babu Brij NaraIn Mahrotra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.444
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 Cawnpur 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 a third party Musammat Janno who rightly or wrongly is asserting her title to it, an order was passed on the 8t...
Mahip NaraIn Pandey Vs. Mannu Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All546
Daniels, J.1. The decision of this appeal depends on a question of res judicata. The plaintiff-respondent, Mannu Singh, together with one Jang Bahadur Singh, purchased certain property from the defendant-appellant, Mahip Narain Pandey. Mahip Narain's sons brought a suit to set aside the sale on two grounds. The first ground was that the sale was without consideration, and the second ground was that even if there was consideration, there was no legal necessity. The suit was decided ex parte and the Court which tried it, on the evidence tendered by one of the plaintiffs before it, found in favour of the plaintiffs on both questions. It found that the sale was without consideration, and therefore there was no legal necessity for it The vendees then filed the present suit to recover from Mahip Narain Pande the alleged consideration of the sale-deed. The trial Court held that it was res judicata between the parties, and that no consideration had passed. The lower Appellate Court has taken a...
Sital Rai and anr. Vs. Ram Khelawan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All543
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit brought by a mortgagee for recovery of possession of certain lands and, in the alternative, for recovery of a proportionate amount due.2. It appears that the defendants made a mortgage of occupancy and fixed-rate holdings in the year 1911 for a sum of Rs. 999-15-0 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is that he has been in possession of the occupancy lands all along and is in possession of them even now, but; that as regards the fixed-rate tenancies, he was put in possession but has since been dispossessed. The defence was that the mortgage was void and the plaintiff had no right to seek the assistance of the Court.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on the ground that the mortgage was one transaction and the whole of the mortgage was illegal. It also came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted to retain possession over the occupancy lands, he did not come to Court with c...
Baijnath Pandan Vs. the Estate of E.C. Dennet
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All400
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a creditors appeal arising out of an application in an insolvency case to be entered as a scheduled-creditor in respect of an amount due on a promissory note, dated the 19th of July, 1922, executed by the insolvent along with two other persons for a sum of Rs. 800. The promissory note bore an interest at the rate of one anna per rupee per mensem, which works out at 75 per cent, per annum.2. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the rate of interest was excessive and that the transaction was unfair as between the parties thereto. He accordingly reduced the rate of interest to 12 per cent per annum simple interest which he considered to be adequate having regard to all the circumstances of this case.3. The creditor has appealed.4. The first point urged on his behalf is that the Act has no application to this case because the respondent, E.C. Dennet, was not the principal debtor but a mere surety. In our opinion, this argument has no force whatsoeve...
(Acharya Guru Mahant) Ramrup GoshaIn and ors. Vs. Mahant Ramdhari Bhag ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All683
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit which was brought professedly under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure after the plaintiffs had obtained sanction of the Legal Remembrancer. The plaintiffs alleged that they had an interest in the properties in dispute which were dedicated properties, that the deceased trustee as well as the present trustee had committed various breaches of trust and that the present trustee was liable to be removed. They impleaded a number of other defendants alleged to be transferees of the trust-property. There were six reliefs claimed in. the plaint : (a) a declaration that the properties in dispute were waqf properties; (b) that the present trustee defendant No. 1 be removed and in his place a new trustee be appointed; (c) that the properties of Schedules 1 and 2 be vested in the new trustee; (d) that the transfers be declared to be null and void and the newly appointed mahanth may be put in possession of the said properties;...
Chunni Lal and ors. Vs. Sheo Charan Lal Lalman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All787
Sulaiman, J.1. The preliminary question raised on behalf of the respondents is that the valuation of this appeal is improper. The appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership which was valued by the plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,500. The plaintiffs claimed that the partnership may be dissolved and that the defendants may be made to render an account and they asked for a decree for Rs. 4,500 and interest thereon or for any sum which may on account be found due. The Court of first instance found that the partnership had been dissolved more than three years before the suit and the claim was barred by limitation. It accordingly dismissed the suit in due. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge who took the view that the partnership had not been dissolved on the date of the filing of the suit. He also found that all the defendants were liable as partners. He accordingly reversed the decree of the first Court and directed that a decree be drawn up under...
Hulasi and anr. Vs. Baba NaraIn Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All822
Daniels, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by Mahant Baba Narain Das, to recover waqf property alienated in the time of his predecessor, Baba Bajrang: Das. The sole question argued before us is one of limitation. There were a ' number of different transfers some made by Bajrang Das himself and some by two persons, Ram Dayal and Gulab, who are said to have been close intimates of Bajrang Das and to have effected certain sales and mortgages of the waqf property with his permission. The various transfers that have taken place are all set out in the judgment of the Court below. AH of them except one are within twelve years of the date of suit, which was 7th June 1919. The first transfer was a usufructuary mortgage of property including the shop in suit by Ram Dayal and Gulab in favour of Inayatullah. Inayattullah's successor in title was Sewa Ram, and the defendants are the successors-in-title of the latter. On the 26th of June 1907, within 12 years of suit, this mortgage was redeemed ...
Shankar Kurmi Vs. Mohammad Moqim Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All77
Stuart, J.1. The three main arguments advanced in support of this appeal are first that the plaintiff was debarred from bringing the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, because it had been decided finally as between him and the appellant Shankar Kurmi, in a revenue Court of competent jurisdiction by a decision of 12th April 1915 subsequently affirmed on appeal that in respect of the property in dispute in the present proceedings the plaintiff was a zamindar and the appellant, Shankar Kurmi, his perpetual lessee. The second point argued was that the Court should not enforce the agreement which it was asked to enforce by the plaintiff-respondent as such an agreement was fraudulent and intended to defeat the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The third point was that the suit was barred by limitation.2. In respect of the first point, I find that there can be no question of res judicata because on the view I hold the revenue Court did not decide that the plaintiff-respondent was the zami...
Hulasi and anr. Vs. Babu NaraIn Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.483
1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mahant Baba Naraih Das, to recover was property alienated in the titite of his predecessor, Baba Bajrang Das: The sole question argued before us is one of, limitation. There were a number of different transfers, some made by Bajrang Das himself and some by two persons, Ram Dayal and Gulab, who are said to have been close intimates of Bajrang Das and to have effected certain sales and mort; gages of the was property with his per, mission. The various transfers that have taken place are all set out in the judgment of the Court below. All of them except one are' within twelve years of the date of-suit, which was 7th June 1919. The first transfer was a usufructuary mortgage of property including the shop in suit by Ram Dayal and Gulab in favour of Inayat-mllah. Inayat-ullah's successor-in-title was Sewa Ram, and the defendants are the succesors-in-title of the latter. On the 26th of June 1907, within twelve years of suit, this mortgage was redeemed ...
Jagat Pande Vs. Sarawan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All404
Daniels, J.1. This first appeal from order arises out of an arbitration award made without the intervention of the Court. The plaintiff-appellant came into Court with an application which is very inartistically drawn, but which has been treated throughout and is now treated by him as in substance an application to file an award under paragraph 20 of the second schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. In paragraph 6 of the plaint he stated that his object was to get the award filed, and to obtain a decree upon it. In the course of the proceedings a plea was taken before the learned Munsif that the defendant was a lunatic and incapable of representing his own interests. The learned Munsif ultimately, however, disposed of the matter by an ex parte order in these terms:Judgment. Suit for the enforcement of an award. Defendant's pleader states that he has no instructions. Suit is heard ex parte. Claim is proved. Decreed with costs.2. The defendant went in appeal to the learned District Judge. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »