Allahabad Court December 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.
Karrar HusaIn and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All290
Ashworth, J.1. The only question that arises in this second appeal is whether the trial Court and the lower appellate Court were correct in holding in this suit for redemption of a mortgage the failure of the plaintiffs to implead as defendants the transferees of some of the mortgagees interested and the grandson of one of the original mortgagees is fatal to the suit. The lower Courts relied upon a decision of a Judge of this Court reported in Saeed-ud-din Khan v. Hira Lal [1914] 12 A.L.J. 619. It was there held that a mortgagor must redeem the property in the ands of all the mortgagees or their representatives and that his failure to implead all such was fatal to the suit. The appellants rely upon another decision of a single Judge of this Court reported in Prashadi Lal v. Laiq Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 107. That case; however, is to be distinguished from the present one inasmuch as it Was possible in that case to pass a decree for sale of part of the mortgaged property only in which the...
Baqar HussaIn and ors. Vs. Tirpati Govind Nath Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All464
1. The plaintiff's suit for redemption was first dismissed according to the lower appellate Court for default because he failed to pay a certain amount demanded from him by way of damages for his failure to get certain summonses served on some of the 117 defendants to the suit. Subsequently the plaintiff offered to pay the amount of damages and the suit was restored. It is clear that the Court believed all along that it was acting under Order 9. Rule 2, as it had some justification in doing so, because the default made by the plaintiff was his failure to pay charges for service on some of the defendants. When an order was made on 8th August, the threat held out to the plaintiff was that the suit would be dismissed in default (adam pairawi). Subsequently two hours later when the sum was not deposited, the Court specifically mentioned that the suit was dismissed in default. In revision it is argued that the Court acted under Order 17, Rule 3, and that, therefore, the proper remedy of the...
Udai Ram Vs. Gobardhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All817
Pullan, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before me, sued for damages because of certain statements made about him in a complaint filed by the respondent in a criminal Court. Damages were allowed by the Court of first instance but not in the lower appellate Court. The Judge of the Court below has referred to the Full Bench ruling reported as Chunni Lal v. Narsingh Das [1918] 40 All. 841, which is conclusive authority that in India as in England a complaint made in a Court of Justice has absolute privilege. It is argued here that this does not apply to a statement made about a third party in a complaint. Now, it may be that the plaintiff's name does not figure as one of the accused persons in the complaint, which was made by the respondent, but the complaint is very clearly made against him. It is alleged that it is he who has enmity against the complainant and who has conspired with the accused persons in order that they should commit the assault of which the complainant complai...
Banka Singh and ors. Vs. Gokul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All286
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The order of the learned Magistrate dated the 13th of May 1926, purporting to be one under Section 145, Criminal P.C., cannot be supported.2. It appears that on a petition dated the 13th of March 1926, filed by Gokul Ahir the opposite party against Sital Rai and certain other persons, the learned Magistrate passed an order purporting to be under Section 144, Criminal P.C., directing the attachment of certain crops on Plot No. 734/9/2. Banka Singh and others, the applicants before me were not parties to those proceedings. When the police wanted to attach the crops the applicants before me filed an application in the Court of the District Magistrate, who by an order dated the 29th of March 1926, set aside the order of the Magistrate directing the attachment of the crops and in the exercise of the powers vested in him by Section 436, Criminal P.C., directed a further enquiry under Section 145, Criminal P.C., with a view to 'restoring the crops to the party which was in p...
H.F. Mahoney Vs. Mrs. Georgiana Dominick
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All333
1. We think this appeal ought to succeed. There is a little difficulty about the evidence of the attesting witnesses. Unfortunately one of them is dead, but it is not disputed that the document is all in one handwriting and that it purports to be in the handwriting of the deceased. It is not disputed that it was in his possession while he was alive, and that he came over from his bungalow and asked the two witnesses to sign it. That raises a strong presumption that the signatures were required by him for his own purpose. The document is short, pious and very carefully drawn up, obviously with an attestation clause, which had been supplied to him by a lawyer, or which he had found in a book of the kind which does provide such things for the general public. It is plain that it was something to which he attached importance, and something for which he required two witnesses. It appears from the evidence of the surviving witness that the two witnesses had been got together, or were in fact ...
Raghunath Tewari and ors. Vs. Sita Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All797
Kendall, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Azamgarh, upholding the decision of the first Court by which the plaintiffs-appellants' suit for possession of certain zemindari property in Azamgarh District and of two mango trees in Fyzabad District was dismissed. Some difficulty has arisen in this Court owing to the lower appellate Court having imported into the proceedings certain findings which are not based on the pleadings of either party. The plaintiffs-appellants based their suit on a sale-deed by which Jaikaran Singh, one of the defendants, purported to transfer the property described above to Sarju Tewari, son of Baijnath Tewari. This sale-deed was executed in 1915. In January 1917, the same defendant, Jaikaran Singh, gifted the same property to defendants 2 and 3, and gave them possession. Sarju, the nominal vendee under the sale-deed of 1915, sued the donor and the donee for possession in 1918. The suit, which ultimately went up in ap...
Mt. Anpurna Kunwar Vs. Ram Padarath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All417
1. The plaintiff brought this suit to enforce a simple mortgage of 15th March 1898, by the sale of certain villages. The mortgage was for Rs. 13,200 bearing interest at 1 per cent, per month for a period of three years, and eight villages were hypothecated. The mortgage was contracted to pay off earlier mortgages. On the 1st of November 1898, the mortgagor executed a second mortgage of the same villages to Babu Inder Sen Singh who is now represented by Mt. Anpurna Kunwar.2. On 4th May 1900, the mortgagor executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs for payment of the sum of Rs. 17,712 due on the mortgage of 15th March 1898, and other items, amounting in all to Rs. 22,500 giving possession of the two villages of Rajdharpur and Konda. Under this mortgage the mortgagee was entitled to sue for the amount due to him on dispossession, and he would in that case be entitled to recover also from the property hypothecated under the bond of 15th March 1898. It is this condition wi...
Jugal Kishore Vs. T. Caul
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All317
Pullan, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether a letter sent by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff on the 6th November 1920, amounts to an acknowledgment to save limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. It appears that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with motor accessories from time to time and the greater part of the account was settled in June 1920. After that a dispute arose between' the parties, the defendant who is a doctor, refusing to pay the balance of the bill until his professional fees were settled. This suit was not brought until the 6th November 1923, and unless that letter is an acknowledgment the suit will be beyond time. The terms of this letter are as follows:I do not understand why you persist in sending me bills when you yourself owe me Rs. 528. Please deduct your bill from the money you owe me and send the balance of Rs. 181-8-0 at your earliest. It will oblige. Don't send any more bills please.2. Now an acknowledgment for t...
Tilak Singh Vs. Ram Tahal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All424
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendants-respondent in respect of grove No. 341-6 in the village of Firozabad. The plaint sets forth that at a partition of the village between the co-sharers grove No. 341 was divided into six pattis and that patti No. 6 was awarded to the plaintiff along with the trees therein but that the defendants who were the co-sharers had claimed the trees therein and interfered with the plaintiff's possession of them. Accordingly the relief asked was perpetual injunction and damages.2. Both the lower Courts have found that no removal of trees was proved against the defendants and against this finding of fact there is not and could not be any second appeal. The lower Courts also decided that the defendants were right in their plea that at the partition, although the land occupied by the grove was subdivided, yet the trees on the grove were assigned separately from the land on which they stood...
Salik Ram Vs. Wali Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927All590
Lindsay, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Judge of the Small Cause Court. It appears that the plaintiff-applicant brought a suit on a bond against the defendant opposite party. On the 16th of April 1926, both parties joined in making a petition to the Judge in which they were willing to be bound by the oath of one Naziruddin. It was stated in the petition that Naziruddin was present in Court but for some reason or other which does not appear, Naziruddin was not examined on that day. The Court ordered the 30th of April to be fixed for taking the evidence of Naziruddin. The witness was not served for that date and was summoned again for the 14th May. On that date Naziruddin was examined. He deposed against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed.2. In this application for revision it is stated that prior to the date on which Naziruddin was examined the plaintiff had expressed his desire to resile from the petition of the 16th April 1926. I find that on the 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »