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.
Firm Ram Lochan Ram-lachhmi Prasad Vs. Jagat NaraIn Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All181
Lindsay, J.1. I think there is no merit in this application. The question which arose for immediate determination in the Court below was the proper construction of Section 71 of the U.P. Act No. 6 of 1920, the Village Panchayat Act. It seems that in this suit a claim was made by a firm trading under the name Ram Lochan Ram-Lachhmi Prasad. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 361-9 due on account.2. Before the present suit was brought in the Court of Small Causes at Gorakhpur, four members of the firm had brought four separate suits before a Village Panchayat Court each claiming a one-fourth share of the consolidated debt.3. Obviously this procedure was resorted to because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Panchayat Court did not extend to the sum of Rs. 361 odd.4. The Panchayat Court passed four separate decrees and these were subsequently cancelled by the Collector acting under the provisions of Section 71(1) of the Village Panchayat Act.5. The decrees having been cancelled the firm then ...
itar Singh and ors. Vs. Umrao and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All189
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal must succeed. It is a settled proposition of law that the rule of res judicata so far as relates to the trial of an issue refersnot to the date of the commencement of the litigation but to the date when the Judge is called upon to decide the issue.2. It is equally settled that the competence of a Court for the purpose of Section 11 of the Civil P.C. is 'to be determined irrespective of any provision as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court '. Vide Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 11 of the Civil P.C. and the case of Beni Madho v. Indar Sahai [1909] 32 All. 67. It remains only to apply this proposition of law to the facts of this present appeal.3. The suit out of which this present appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for arrears of rent for three years, on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the ex-proprietary tenants of the plots in respect of which the rent was due from the defendants, and that the defendants were in p...
Mt. Joti Bala Debi Vs. M. Sheo Ling Shami Jangam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All201
Banerji, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit to recover haq-i-chaharum. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that as the amount of the claim is below Rs. 500, the suit was a suit of the nature of small causes. I have repelled the contention as I am of opinion that the case is not of a nature cognizable by the Court of Small Causes.2. The plaintiff Came into Court on the allegation that he was the zemindar and owner of the site of the house purchased by the defendant, which is in Mohalla Man Sarobar in the city of Benares, that the Defendant No. 2 sold his right as a parjautdar to Defendant No. land that in Mohalla Man Sarobar in the city of Benares there is a custom in vogue that at the time of transferring a house or rights as a parjautdar, the zemindar gets one-fourth of the sale consideration.' and both the vendor and the vendee are liable for the payment of this amount, which is called zar-i-chaharum. The defence to the action is as set up by the defend...
Sheo Chand Misra Vs. Sita Ram Misra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All331
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The mortgage was in favour of two persons Lachhman Misser and Sita Ram Misser. Before the institution of the suit Lachhman Misser had died leaving as his legal representative one Raj Ballaw Misser who was arrayed as Defendant No. 2 and Sita Ram Misser was arrayed as Defendant No. 1.2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but the decree of the trial Court has been reversed by the lower appellate Court and the suit has been dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court Sita Ram Misser died, and no step was taken in this Court, within the statutory period, to bring on the record his heirs and legal representatives. It appears from the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent that Sita Ram Misser died so back as in the month of May 1925. An affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has been filed to-day, and in it the allegation is that Sita Ram Misser was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›