Allahabad Court November 1928 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.
Raghunath Das Vs. Chingan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All62; 113Ind.Cas.747
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision under the Small Cause Court Act. The case has not been tried satisfactorily. In para. 5 of the written statement there was a denial of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case. No issue has been framed on this point nor has the question been at all considered. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint was that on 4th June 1926, some property had been put up for auction and there were a number of bidders including the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff paid Rs. 110 to the defendant on the understanding that after the sale was finished in his favour and the sale confirmed he would 'sell' the property to the plaintiff. Later when the plaintiff demanded the property, the defendant put up a third person and got him to institute a suit against himself which was not defended and was decreed ex-parte. The defendant had suffered no loss because he realized the decretal amount. The plaintiff alleged that in spite of payment the defendan...
Amarjit Upadhiya Vs. Algu Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All71; 113Ind.Cas.765
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiff alleged that the property in dispute was the stridhan property of his maternal grandmother Mt. Mahadei alias Gomta and that on her death he became the sole heir to it. The defendant denied that the property was the stridhan property of Mt. Gomta and also denied that the plaintiff was competent to bring the claim. There was, however, no specific assertion in the written statement that the plaintiff had sisters who would succeed to the stridhan estate, if it were one, in preference to him. But at the trial the defendant was allowed to lead oral evidence to the effect that the plaintiff had two sisters who were alive. No protest was made on behalf of the plaintiff to the production of such evidence, and there was no cross-examination of the three witnesses who deposed to that effect on the point. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the claim without considering this part of the defendant'...
Ajodhya and ors. Vs. Indra and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All330; 113Ind.Cas.405
Boys, J.1. Two points were taken before me. I was asked to hold that the lower appellate Court was wrong in not allowing the defendant to press the plea of adverse possession. I do not think it was wrong in view of the plea deliberately and definitely and, I have no doubt truly taken in the written statement.2. There is no need for me to add anything to what the lower appellate Court has said. The other point is whether the defendants, representatives of the original mortgagee, and who for the present purpose may be treated as mortgagees, were entitled on the plaintiff mortgagor redeeming a usufructuary mortgage to compensation for the trees of a guava grove, trees said to be 75 in number and to have been planted 10 or 11 years previously, or whether they were entitled to remove the trees and to have time given them for removing them. I have taken the description of the grove from the defendant's written statement. The plaintiff in a misguided effort to improve his own case apparently ...
Musammat Sughra Vs. Muzaffari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.383
1. In view of the findings arrived at by the Court below this appeal must be allowed. Mr. Akbar Husain, the District Judge of Saharanpur, has arrived at the following findings which are unequivocal and clear: The plaintiff-appellant first came to know that she had the right of repudiating the marriage on the 5th September, 1923, when she sent a notice to the defendant by registered post. It was on that day that she for the first time repudiated her marriage. Under the Muhammadan Law, as expounded by Imam Mohammad, a woman's right of option to repudiate a marriage is prolonged until she is acquainted with the fact that she possesses such a right. This is a special rule of law which is recognised under the Muhammadan jurisprudence and which gives the right to a Muhammadan lady to repudiate the marriage when she is in possession of all the facts entitling her to repudiate it. It has been held by this Court in Bismillah Begam v. Nur Mohammad 63 Ind. Cas. 702 : 19 A.L.J. 845 : 3 U.P.L.R (A....
Gauri Shankar Vs. Keshab Deo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All148; 114Ind.Cas.881
1. First Appeals Nos. 450, 101, 520 and 544 are all connected and we propose to dispose of them by one principal judgment. Gauri Shankar filed two suits for omnibus declarations that a large number of documents like simple mortgages, usufructuary mortgages, sale-deeds and releases and decrees obtained on the basis of other documents as well as certain auction-sales which have taken place are not binding on the plaintiff. Some of the mortgagees have sued for their money. The persons interested in the various transactions which amounted to about 51 in number were numerous. About 65 defendants were impleaded in the Court below in the first instance and the number has swelled considerably in consequence of the deaths of several of them, and their representatives having been brought on the record in the Court below and in this Court. Briefly speaking the plaintiff's case was that he was a minor, and during his minority his uncle Keshab Deo started an entirely new shop styled Keshab Deo Gaur...
Gopi Ram Vs. Durjan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All63a; 113Ind.Cas.753
Niamatullah, J.1. Plaintiff-respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of possession of the land in dispute on the allegation that by a deed of exchange, dated 7th January 1924, defendant 1 transferred it to him in lieu of certain other property and a sum of Rs. 25, and that defendant 1 is wrongfully withholding possession of the same. The claim was resisted by the defendant 1 on the ground that the title of the plaintiff in the property given by him in exchange was defective in so far as defendants 2 and 3 are minor members of a joint Hindu family with the plaintiff and have an interest in the property assigned by the plaintiff, that the suit in its nature is one for specific performance of contract and the specific relief claimed by the plaintiff should be refused under the circumstances of the case, and that in the absence of two formal deeds of transfer, one executed by the plaintiff and the other by defendant 1, title to the property to which the ...
Bengali Lal Vs. Bohre Panna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All77; 113Ind.Cas.750
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for redemption of a shop mortgaged by him under a deed dated 6th August 1881 on payment of Rs. 100 only. The defendant-mortgagee claimed Rs. 666 incurred by him in repairing the mortgaged property. This latter sum may be left out of account as both the lower Courts found against the mortgagee and held that he has failed to establish his allegation. As regards the amount of mortgage money, to which the defendant mortgagee is entitled on redemption, the stipulation contained in the mortgage-deed is that the mortgagee having advanced Rs. 150 was entitled to possession of the, mortgaged property in lieu of Rs. 100 (baewaz mubliq sau rupya... dakhal de diya) and was further entitled to interest on the remaining Rs. 50 at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent. per mensem. The mortgagor undertook to pay the entire mortgage money (mubligan mazkur) in two years and to obtain redemption and in case of def...
Bhullan and ors. Vs. Dasrath Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All67; 113Ind.Cas.748
Niamatullah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for ejectment of defendants from certain lands alleged to be part of village Darweshpur which admittedly belongs to the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendants-appellants are fixed rate tenants in an adjoining village named Sultanpur which belongs to certain other persons not interested in this litigation. The defendants claim the lands in dispute as part of their fixed rate tenancy denying the plaintiffs' proprietary rights with respect to them on the ground that they lay within the boundary of village Sultanpur with which the plaintiffs-respondents have no concern. The Court of first instance found in favour of the plaintiffs on the merits of the case, but dismissed it on a technical ground, namely, that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 23, Rule 1(3) inasmuch as a previous suit of a similar character had been withdrawn in 1918 by the plaintiffs-respondents without obtaining t...
Kishen Sahai and ors. Vs. Raghunath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All139
1. This appeal is connected with First Appeal No. 437 of 1925, both of which arise out of the same suit.2. The suit was instituted by Lala Kishan Sahai and two others as mortgagees against defendant 1, Raghunath Singh, his brother Khair Singh a minor, and Raghunath Singh's son, Bhopal Singh also a minor. There were two other defendants who were made parties as subsequent transferees.3. The suit arose out of a mortgage executed on 12th July 1916 by Raghunath Singh, defendant 1, and his father Sewak Ram, who has since died. The amount borrowed was a sum of Rs. 4,000. The plaintiffs pleaded that the mortgage was executed for legal necessity and was therefore binding not only on Raghunath Singh, one of the mortgagors, but on his minor brother Khair Singh, and also his minor son Bhopal Singh. Bhopal Singh alone contested the suit through his guardian. His contention was that the mortgage was not supported by legal necessity.4. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there were four items w...
Krishna Kishore Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All259
Dalal, J.1. This is a case where rehearing ought to have been permitted. Issues in the case were referred to arbitration. While the arbitration was pending the trial Court ordered that if the award was not received back on a certain date the arbitration would be superseded and proceedings continued by Court. As observed by a Bench of two Judges in Ganesh v. Damodar Das [1912] 10 A.L.J. 23, this was an undesirable order. After superseding an award the parties should be given time and opportunity to present themselves in Court and to produce evidence. This was not done in this case. As soon as the arbitration was superseded the Court wanted to proceed with the case. The plaintiff was not present, and the suit was promptly dismissed. He had engaged a counsel, but naturally in the absence of any witnesses the counsel was not in a position to proceed with the case. When it was uncertain whether the suit would be tried on the date fixed for hearing or not it was too much to expect that the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »