Allahabad Court July 1927 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.
Mirza Altaf Beg Vs. Fazlul Haq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All196
Dalal, J.1. No second appeal lies, so this appeal is argued as a revision. The view of law taken by the lower appellate Court is correct. The facts are that after a sale, and within 30 days, the judgment-debtor applied under Rule 90, Order 21, to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity and fraud. That application was dismissed, whereupon within limitation he moved under Rule 89 for the cancellation of the sale on depositing in Court the full amount of the decree and 5 per cent. of the purchase-money. The argument here was that as soon as the application under Rule 90 was dismissed, the sale was automatically confirmed under Rule 92 (1), because on such dismissal the Court is enjoined to make an order confirming the sale, and it is directed that thereupon the sale shall become absolute. This, however, is obviously subject to the rule that a sale shall not be confirmed until after 30 days. In the second clause of Rule 92 it is laid down that, when in an application under Se...
Koka and anr. Vs. Chunni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All623
1. This second appeal, which came up before a single Judge of this Court, has been referred to a Bench of two Judges on account of the apparent conflict between the case of Bishambhar Nath v. Bhola [1912] 34 All. 98, on the one side, and Ganga Singh v. Ram Sarup [1916] 38 All. 228 and Kundan Lal v. Basant Rai A.I.R. 1924 All. 935., on the other hand. The whole question involved is whether a lambardar can sue as lambardar any co-sharer who has occupied land bringing in an estimated yearly income in excess of the sum due to that co-sharer according to his fractional interest in the mahal.2. An attempt has been made by the plaintiff-lambardar's counsel in this second appeal to show that the suit was not one of this description; and secondly that it was not treated by the lower Courts as one of this description. The former attempt must fail in view of the account filed by the plaintiff with his plaint. That account does not show the plaintiff's share in the mahal as a co-sharer. It claims ...
Chhanga Vs. Tirhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All192
1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside the final decree in a partition suit. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 26th January 1925 and the Court appointed an amin to prepare lots in the light of the observation contained in the judgment within one month and directed that the plaintiff should deposit the necessary Court-fees. The fees were deposited and the amin prepared the necessary lots and then the final decree was passed on 7th April 1925. The appellant, however, appears to have taken no part in the proceedings relating to the preparation of the lots nor does he appear to have raised any objection to the lots prepared by the amin. The final decree was passed while he put in no appearance. Subsequently, on 23rd April 1925, he filed an appear from the preliminary decrees which has now been dismissed by us by our order of this date. While the appeal was pending in the High Court the defendant filed an application on 18th August 1925 for setting aside the...
Ganga DIn and anr. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All642
1. These two appeals arise out of two suits which were tried separately by two Subordinate Judges of Budaun. But as the claims were based upon similar causes of action and relate to the same property, and as the same questions arise for determination in both cases the two appeals have been heard together and may be disposed of by one judgment.2. The following pedigree will serve to show the nature of the claim put forward in either suit:(For pedigree see next page.)3. The property in respect of which the two suits were brought was admitted in the Court below to have been at one time the absolute estate (stridhan) of a lady named Radhika Rani, who was the mother of Mt. Jhuna Kuar, wife of Bhola Prasad.4. On the death of her mother the property descended to Mt Jhuna Kuar who, on the 13th August 1899, executed a will (Ex. 1, page 20, of the paper-book of F.A. No. 324 of 1924). She claimed to be the full owner of the property and disposed of it in favour of her husband Bhola Prasad and her...
Ram Kishore Ahir and ors. Vs. Ram Nandan Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All99; 108Ind.Cas.149
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit to redeem two mortgages dated 15th December 1909 and 6th September 1901, executed by one Magni Ram, father of the plaintiff, in favour of Ram Kishore Ram, the predecessor of the defendants. In this appeal we are concerned with the mortgage dated the 6th September 1901, which was executed to secure a debt of Rs. 699. Under the terms of this document Magni Ram made a usufructuary mortgage of certain fixed rate and occupancy holdings for a sum of Rs. 500 and as the usufruct of the property was not sufficient to keep down the interest on the entire amount of Rs. 699, he agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem on Rs. 199. There was a distinct stipulation in the mortgage bond that the mortgagor was entitled to take the document and the fields mortgaged on payment of the entire sum of Rs. 699 in one lump sum towards the close of the month of Jeth of any year. The document was signed by the mortgagor through the pen of...
Chatarbhuj Vs. Harnandan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All108; 108Ind.Cas.141
Boys, J.1. The dispute in connexion with which this civil revision arises has already been before this Court and the matter then in dispute was the subject of Civil Revision No. 125 of 1925, decided on the 19th June 1926, and reported in Harnand Lal v. Chatarbhuj : AIR1926All212 . The trouble arises out of a contract for sale of a house entered into on the 8th September 1923, by which Chatarbhuj, son of Mewa Ram (not the Chatarbhuj, son of Hem Raj who is the applicant before us), agreed to purchase from Harnand Lal, the opposite party in this application, the house in question for Rs. 95,000. He failed to carry out the contract after having paid Rs. 15,000 and Harnand Lal brought a suit against him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. On the 2nd May 1925, Chatarbhuj, son of Hem Raj, applied under Order 32, Rule 15 to be made guardian of the defendant Chatarbhuj, son of Mewa Ram. In August 1925, Chatarbhuj, son of Hem Raj, started lunacy proceedings under Act 4 of 1912 in the Court of...
Ram Chandra Sahai Vs. Rama Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.591
1. This first appeal arises Out of a suit for recovery of the principal and balance of interest due under a mortgage-bond, dated the 3rd January, 1922. This bond mortgaged certain property. Some of the property was given into the possession of the mortgagee and the profits from the property were set off against a certain portion of the interest due. As regards the balance of the interest the mortgagors bound themselves to pay that interest year by year. It was stipulated in the deed that if this interest was not paid on due date it should itself bear interest at 7 annas per cent. per mensem. On failure of the mortgagors to pay this interest it was provided that the mortgagee 'should be competent at all times to recover the mortgage money... and the interest referred to above (and again compound interest thereon) by enforcement of the hypothecation lien and sale of the property mortgaged', The words 'at all times' were qualified by a postscript. This postscript ran as follows:--'The mor...
Shabbir Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All21
Dalal, J.1. It is not very clear why persons other than Shabbir Hasan have appealed to this Court. There is no complaint by the District Judge of Moradabad against any person other than Shabbir Hasan. Even if the learned Judge's order of 15th December 1926 be considered to be a complaint, it is only a complaint against Shabbir Hasan. The case of no other person is considered in that order. At the end of the order the District Judge wrote:The papers will be sent to the District Magistrate who will be asked to have the matter investigated by a competent police officer with a view to a criminal prosecution.2. The criminal prosecution can only be of Shabbir Hasan, and not of all and sundry who may be discovered after the police inquiry to have been implicated in the forgery. In my opinion Mr. Radha Kishan was negligent in his duty in not taking action tinder Section 476, Criminal P. C, and passing on the trouble of an inquiry to the District Judge. Under Section 476 an inquiry has to be ma...
Fazal Haq Vs. Fazal Haq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All201
1. The parties to the suit are neighbours. There is a public road in mohalla Panjabian of Pilibhit which runs from north to south. To the east of the said road is the house of the defendants and to the west the house of the plaintiff, which is occupied by the plaintiff and the ladies of his house. In June 1924, the defendants started certain constructions on the upper flat of their house and opened three new doors facing the west. These doors have been marked in the site plan attached to the plaint by the letters A, B and C. The customary right of privacy applies in the neighbourhood where the plaintiff's house is situate, and it applies to the class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs. By opening the doors aforesaid the defendants invaded the plaintiff's right of privacy. The plaintiff protested to the defendants, but the latter heeded him not. The plaintiff approached the Municipal Board of Piliphit who had sanctioned the construction of the defendant's house, but found no redr...
Champa Ram and anr. Vs. Firm Tulshi Ram-jai Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All617
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of a specified sum of money after allowing deduction for brokerage, commission, etc. The allegations upon which the suit was lodged are briefly these:The plaintiffs are pakka arahtias carrying ON business in Shahjahanpur. The defendants are pakka arahtias who do business in Cawnpore. In the months of August and September 1917 the plaintiffs engaged the service of the defendants as commission agents to purchase certain bags of cotton-seed for them. The defendants made the said purchase, and under orders from the plaintiffs they sold the said goods to certain parties, with whom we are not concerned in this suit, in the months of October and November 1917. According to the plaintiffs this brought Rs. 1,303, as profit to the plaintiffs. Hence the claim for recovery of this amount and interest. Several defences were put forward in this case, three of which are worthy of mention. The defendants pleaded that the suit was not c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »