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.
Sahu Bisheshar Nath and ors. Vs. Chandu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-07-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All71; 108Ind.Cas.459
Boys, J.1. This is a decree-holder's application purporting to be under Order 34, Rule 6, and asking for a decree, not for a balance due after a sale but for the total amount of the decree, on the ground that any sale now applied for and carried out would be inevitably infructuous owing to no fault of the mortgagee decree-holder. The facts are that the judgment-debtor executed a simple mortgage in favour of the present decree-holder on the 16th January 1908. On this mortgage a suit was instituted on the 20th November 1913, and a preliminary decree was obtained on the 22nd December 1913, ex parte. A third party, with whom we are not now concerned, brought a suit against the mortgagor, to which he also made the mortgagee a party, for a declaration that the mortgagor had no title in the property mortgaged, and obtained a decree on 15th December 1915. On 23rd September 1916, the mortgagee obtained a final decree.2. The question that now arose for the mortgagee was whether he was to apply f...
Balmakund Vs. Ramendranath Ghosh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All497
1. The question to be decided in this first Appeal is whether the document which was exhibited as Ex. 4 in the Court below, and which was propounded as being the last Will of Ram Rup Ghose, ought to have been admitted to probate by the District Judge. Ram Rup Ghose was once a head master and had been living for a number of years in Allahabad after his retirement on pension. It is admitted on both sides that on the 2nd of February 1920, Ram Rup Ghose executed a Will, which was registered. At that time the members of Ram Rup Ghose's family, who were alive and in whom he was necessarily interested, where his wife, his son Ramendra Nath Ghose, his daughter-in-law Mirnalini Debi (the widow of a deceased son) and her three children (two sons and one daughter). By his registered Will, marked Ex. A, Ram Rup arranged for the distribution of his property after his death. He appointed four executors to his Will, and directed that one half of the annual income of his estate should be paid to his w...
Jagannath Bhagwan Das Vs. Municipal Board of Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All136; 108Ind.Cas.454
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of a firm of Government contractors who sued the Municipal Board, the respondent in the case, for a refund of octroi duty paid by them when they imported certain goods within the municipal limits. Their case was that the goods were obtained in order that they might fulfil certain contracts with the military authorities and that these goods, having been appropriated to the use of the Government under these contracts and the necessary certificates having been obtained from the military authorities, they wore entitled to a refund.2. The Municipal Board resisted the application on the ground that the shape in which the goods were accepted by the Government officers was not the shape in which they were brought within the municipal limits. In other words, their case was that the rule as to refund of the octroi duty applied only where goods imported were handed over without any alteration of shape or size or character to the Government officers for Gover...
Ram Sarup Vs. Hardeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All68; 108Ind.Cas.144
Lindsay, J.1. This application for revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, has been referred for decision to a Bench and the question to be determined is the liability of the defendant-appellant Ram Sarup in respect of a cheque drawn by him on the Allahabad Bank Limited on the 5th June 1926, and made payable to 'Ram Saran or order.' The amount of the cheque was Rs. 500.2. On the 10th June 1926 the cheque was presented for payment and was dishonoured. It was proved at the trial that the drawer had no founds at credit with the Bank and that he had made no arrangement for an overdraft. Payment was refused by the Bank on the ground that it had not been arranged for. On 28th September 1926 the cheque was again presented for payment and again dishonoured on two grounds: (1) that payment had not been arranged for by the drawer and (2) that the endorsement of the payee was wanting. It is not clear who presented the cheque on this second occasion. Obviously it was some pe...
Padarath Pathak Vs. Jagdeo Pathak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All844
Sen, J. 1. This is the plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession of plots 1021/7, 8, 9 and 10, and for Rs. 20 as mesne profits for 1329 and 1330 Faslis. Plaintiff and defendants are brothers. According to the plaintiff he separated from the family 30 or 35 years ago. After separation he obtained a lease from the Raja of Jaunpur of the land in dispute, and remained in exclusive possession of the land in suit. Some time towards the close of 1921, or the beginning of 1922, the Raja of Jaunpur sued the plaintiff for ejectment. The defendants were no parties to this suit. A compromise was arrived at on the 31st January 1922, and a fresh lease was granted to the plaintiff for a term of seven years from 1329 to 1335 Faslis on an enhanced rent. In July 1922, the defendants took forcible possession of the land and sowed paddy crop. Hence the suit for possession and damages2. The defendants deny that the plaintiff separate from the family 30 or 35 years ago. They allege that the separation too...
Raghunath and anr. Vs. N. Mohammad Ali Hasan Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All117
Boys, J.1. This is a suit by a zamindar for possession of a plot of land by ejectment of the tenant in possession on the allegation that it had ceased to be a grove, in that on the whole area of 176 acres there were only left two mango trees. Both Courts have found that on the whole area there were only remaining two mangoes, three self-planted babul and some 8 berri (plum) trees, and, holding that the area had lost its character as a grove, have decreed the plaintiff's claim.2. I have been pressed with the decision of two learned Judges of this Court upholding in Letters Patent Appeal a judgment of a single Judge, the case of Mahbub Ali Khan v. Chiddan (1). The judgment, as reported, was difficult to understand and there seemed clearly something wrong. I sent for the original judgment, and all ambiguity vanished when the original judgment showed that there was a clerical error in the report, live lines from the bottom of page 600, where the figures '35 biswas' should be '15 biswas.' A...
Mohammad Samiullah Khan Vs. Bishu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-04-1927
Reported in: AIR1928All316
Sen, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore, dated 30th September 1924, dismissing his suit for damages against Bishunath, defendant, founded upon certain defamatory statements made by the defendant against the plaintiff. The plaintiff belongs to a respectable family and is a man of substance. The defendant is a tenant in the plaintiff's zamindari. Strained relations had existed between the parties for some time. The defendant had addressed a petition to the District Magistrate of Fatehpur through his son-in-law, Mukatdhari, on 9th February 1922. This has been marked as Ex. 1 of the Munsif's record. A second petition was addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Khakraitu through the same son-in-law and on the same date. This has been marked as Ex. 2. These petitions contained a number of serious imputations against the plaintiff. A Sub-Inspector, Faruq Ahmad, was deputed to investigate into the matter. During the progress of the investigat...
Ganga NaraIn and ors. Vs. Manik Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1927All727
Dalal, J.1. I have considered the ruling in the case of Jagardeo Singh v. Ali Hammad [1918] 40 All. 300 and think that it has been rightly applied to the circumstances of the present case by the learned District Judge of the lower appellate Court. The suit was brought by an occupancy tenant against zamindars of the village for their ejectment on the allegation that they were his sub-tenants. The Assistant Collector took the view which would suggest itself to most men, that, if the landlord took possession, he ejected the occupancy tenant, and the tenant was bound to sue for ejectment under Section 79, Tenancy Act (2 of 1901) which permits of a very short period of limitation. In the present case, however, the occupancy tenant accepted the landlords, who were squatters, as his sub-tenants and sued under Section 58, Tenancy Act, for their ejectment. Having regard to the view taken by this Court in the ruling quoted above, I am of opinion that the occupancy tenant was at liberty to take s...
Kallu and anr. Vs. Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1927
Reported in: AIR1929All120
1. This defendants' appeal arises out of a suit 'for enforcement of a hypothecation lien by sale of the property specified.' The only question with which we are concerned is whether Article 132, Lim. Act or whether Article 116/ 115 applies, and whether the suit is barred by limitation. The facts are as follows:2. One Dewan Singh, whose heir is the present plaintiff, had two properties, which we will call A and B. On 19th September 1902, he executed a simple mortgage of both the properties A and B in favour of Ramrich Pal.3. On 18th February 1905, he sold the property A to the present defendants for Rs. 700 leaving with them Rs. 480 to pay off the mortgage in favour of Ramrich Pal.4. On 20th July 1905, Dewan Singh executed another mortgage in favour of Shamsundar, hypothecating the property B. The defendants did not discharge the mortgage in favour of Ramrich Pal, and accordingly properties A and B both remained subject to the mortgage. The excuse of the defendants for their default was...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›