Allahabad Court November 1926 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.
Bengal and North-western Railway Vs. Matru Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All220
1. This is a second appeal. Both the subordinate Courts have held that the defendant Railway Company unlawfully converted the goods of the plaintiff, which were in its custody. A consignment of salt was despatched from Kharaghoda (Bombay Presidency) to Deoria in the Gorakhpur district. Out of seven wagon loads, four got damaged through wet, when the salt was received at Deoria. The finding is in the appellant's favour that the Company was not responsible for the damage. The plaintiff refused to take delivery and the salt was sold at auction by the Company in October 1921. The salt was booked in June so the Company kept custody of it for less than six months.2. According to the lower appellate Court the Company acted unlawfully in selling the salt without giving to the plaintiff 15 days' clear notice as required by Section 55 of the Railways Act. In this Court the counsel for the appellant was prepared to satisfy us that proper notice was given. We did not accept this additional evidenc...
Dalip Singh Vs. Tilak Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All270a
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 20th of April 1909, executed by the plaintiff in favour of Defendant No. 1 and father of Defendant No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 80. The property mortgaged was Plot No. 115 of village Kharawan. One Mt. Rajjo was admittedly an occupancy tenant of the said plot. She, by a deed of gift, dated the 2nd of October 1888, transferred the said plot to the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants without any right were denying the plaintiff's title to redeem the mortgage.2. The defence to the suit was, that the deed of gift executed by Mt. Rajjo was never given effect to, and that the plaintiff was never in possession of the plot in dispute in his own right, but was in possession only as a manager of Mt. Rajjo. It was further alleged by the defendants, that they never got possession of the plot in dispute under the mortgage executed by the plaintiff, and as such the p...
Allahabad Union Bank Ltd. Vs. Jageshwar Prasad Shukul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All598
Mukerji, J.1. Mr. Jageshar Prasad Shukul states that the nature of the transaction between him and the bank was like this: Jageshar Prasad having some money to spare for investing in loans he handed over the money to the Union Bank and received a note-book in which it was stated that the money was for safe custody. As a matter of agreement and practice, however, Mr. Jageshar Prasad used to secure borrowers who would agree to pledge ornaments by way of security. The borrower was taken by Jageshar Prasad to the manager of the bank or he would go to the manager of the bank with a note from Mr. Jageshar Prasad. The ornament was kept by the bank by way of security and money was advanced on an interest of 12% per annum. Out of this interest Jageshar Prasad used to get 9% and the bank 3%. No money of Jageshar Prasad used to be lent out by the bank without any security of ornaments. Similarly when a man came to redeem his ornaments he would either take Jageshar Prasad to the bank or take a not...
Mohendra Dube and anr. Vs. Ram Bhajan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All822
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. 'This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a one-third share in certain occupancy holding and for damages.2. The plaintiffs's case was that they were entitled to a one-third share in the holding and that the remaining two-thirds share belonged to defendants 1 to 7. One of the defendants to the suit was Ram Das Dube and he alleged in his written statement that he along with the plaintiffs was entitled to one-third share claimed by the plaintiffs; in other words, he maintained that he had a one-ninth share in the holding in dispute and that the decree in the plaintiffs' favour should be passed 'subject to the reservation of his right and share.'3. The contesting defendants, who are the appellants before me, resisted the suit on the ground, that the plaintiffs had no share in the holding in dispute and further the plaintiffs not having been in possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, the suit was time barred. The tria...
Sheo Balak Ram and ors. Vs. Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All745
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must succeed. The point involved in this appeal is covered by two decisions of this Court reported as Sheodihal Singh v. Badri Narain [1911] 33 All. 61 and Jeoni v. Kalloo A.I.R. 1921 All. 105. It has been held in those cases that in suits for arrears of rent the protection afforded by Section 198, Tenancy Act, is available to a defendant only in those cases in which the defendant pleads that the relation of land holder and tenant does not subsist between the plaintiff and himself on the ground that he has in good faith paid the rent claimed to some third person.2. In the litigation giving rise to the present appeal, it was common ground that the plaintiff was owner of half the patti in which the plots in respect of which the rent was claimed were situate, and as such the plaintiff was obviously entitled to the amount claimed by him, which was made up of half of the rent of the plots together with interest thereon. But the claim of the plaintiff was resist...
In Re: Allahabad Union Bank, Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Jageshar Prasad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.62
Mukerji, J.1. Mr. Jageshar Prasad Shukul states that the nature of the transaction between him and the Bank was like this. Jageshar Prasad having some money to spare for investing in loans he handed over the money to the Union Bank and received a note-book in which it was stated that the money was for safe custody. As a matter of agreement and practice, however, Mr. Jageshar Prasad used to secure borrowers who would agree to pledge ornaments by way of security. The borrower was taken by Jageshar Prasad to the Manager of the Bank or he would go to the Manager of the Bank with a note from Mr. Jageshar Prasad. The ornament was kept by the Bank by way of security and money was advanced on an interest of 12 per cent, per annum. Out of this interest Jageshar Prasad used to get 9 per cent, and the Bank 3 per cent. No money of Jageshar Prasad used to be lent out by the Bank without any security of ornaments. ,Similarly when a man came to redeem his ornaments he would either take Jageshar Prasa...
BaladIn Vs. Lakhan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All214
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. In execution of a simple money decree a certain house in ruins was sought to be attached and sold by the decree-holder who is the respondent before me. An objection to the attachment was taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor-appellant that the so-called house sought to be attached was in his occupation as an agriculturist and as such was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree held by the respondent. This objection has been overruled by both the Courts below; hence this second appeal by the judgment-debtor.2. The first Court held that the house is in a very dilapidated condition and has no doors, and the roof has fallen down and that the house is not used for residence. This finding and decision has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.3. In appeal before me it is argued that the mere fact that the judgment-debtor did not reside in the house was no reason for overruling the objection taken by him inasmuch as if it was used by him for storin...
Tarif and ors. Vs. Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All274
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of certain zemindari property.2. The property in dispute admittedly belonged to two brothers Badan and Jhanda who were Jats in equal share. Badan died about 50 years prior to the institution of the suit, and was succeeded by his widow Bahalo, who entered into possession of the property of Badan. Within few years of the death of Badan, Bahalo re-married one Khubi. Jahanda remained in possession of his share till the year 1906, in which year he sold his share to one Bhopal and the latter in his turn sold the same to Mt. Bahalo on the 12th of June 1907. Notwithstanding her remarriage, Bahalo remained in possession of Badan's property in her lifetime. Mt. Bahalo died on the 23rd of February 1910, leaving a daughter Mt. Sis Kunwar by Khubi who obtained mutation of the name over the entire property in dispute. Sis Kunwar sold the property to Defendant No. 1 and the predecessor of Defendants Nos. 2 to 4, On...
Shiam Lal Vs. Girraj Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All76
Boys, J.1. Shib Singh and his brother got a decree (No. 202 of 1912) for costs for Rs. 56 against Fateh Singh. This same Fateh Singh had a revenue Court decree (No. 28 of 1916) for Rs. 189-11-9 against Shib Singh and his brother. Shib Singh proceeded to execute the decree and attached the Decree No. 28 of 1916 of Fateh Singh. It was put up for auction, and one question that has been argued before us in this case is whether that was, in view of the terms of Order 21, Rule 53, a proper procedure. At the sale the property was purchased by Shiam Lal, the present appellant here, for the sum of Rs. 50. Shiam Lal was the clerk of a pleader of Shib Singh. No objection was made by either Shib Singh or by Fateh Singh to this purchase by Shiam Lal; that is to say, neither of them raised an objection that, under the terms of Order 21, Rule 73, Shiam Lal, as clerk of the decree-holder's pleader, was prohibited from purchasing. This is another question with which we are concerned. 2. Subsequently, S...
Munawar Ali Vs. Jagmilan Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All177
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage, dated the 29th of July 1862, executed by Mt. Ulfat Bibi, predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff in favour of Sabut Kunwar and Ram Phal Kunwar, predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, first party.2. By the said mortgage Houses Nos. 80 and 148, situate in the town of Saidpur were mortgaged for a sum of Rs. 340. The plaintiff's case was that the principal mortgage-money, together with interest thereon at the stipulated rate, had been satisfied from the rent of the houses mortgaged, and as such the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for redemption of the said mortgage without payment of any amount, and was over and above that entitled to a decree for the surplus amount that may have been realised by the persons in possession of the mortgaged property after liquidation of the mortgage-debt. 3. It is common ground that Defendant No. 4 was in possession of House No. 80 and Defendants Nos. ...