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.
Goswami Krishna Kishore Vs. Goswami Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.749
Dalal, J.1. This is a case where rehearing ought to have been permitted. Issues in the one 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 seded and proceedings continued by As observed by a Bench of two Judges in Ganesh Prasad v. Damoderdas 16 Ind. Cas. 177 : 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 As soon as the arbitration was superseded the Court wanted to proceed with the case.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 th...
Shib Charan Vs. Ram Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.750a
Dalal, J.1. On behalf of the respondents Mr. Panna Lal has raised a preliminary objection that no second appeal lies. This point is covered by authority of this Court in his favour. There is a Bench ruling Chintamani v. Mahima Dat 19 Ind. Cas. 628 There in a case similar to the present it was held that a second appeal would be barred under the provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The point at issue will be whether a suit. for the recovery of a share of offerings at a temple is one barred from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes under Article 13 of Schedule II of that Act or not. The present suit was of a value of Rs. 375 only. So it would lie in a Court of Small Causes unless barred from such cognizance by, any Article in the Second Schedule. This Court has consistently taken the view that a suit of that nature is not barred from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. All the rulings have been summarised in the case noted above. More recently in 1922 a ...
Chakhan Lal and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All72
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 25th July 1918. This appeal was originally connected with first appeal No. 187 of 1925 which has already been disposed of. It is on the paper book of this latter appeal that all the relevant documents are to be found. Chakhan Lal was a contractor carrying on business at Agra and in the course of his business he borrowed money on hundis from the present plaintiffs. On 2nd October 1917 he executed a mortgage deed as security for the payment of the amounts due from him on the hundis previously executed. The total amount due on the hundis aggregated to Rs. 10,000. It was mentioned in the deed that the old hundis would be renewed from time to time. Subsequent to this deed certain hundis were executed jointly by Chakhan Lal and his brother Balak Ram, the principal amount advanced on such hundis being Rs. 2,800. After this on 25th July 1918, a fresh mortgage deed was executed jointly by Chakhan Lal and...
Suraj Pal Singh Vs. Ramjit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All341
1. The litigation which has given rise to this appeal arises under the Agra Tenancy Act. It appears that Ramjit, the defendant-respondent before us, was % non-occupancy tenant of a certain holding of which the owner was the plaintiff-appellant, Raja Surajpal Singh, the Raja of Avagarh.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff, as zamindar, took steps under Sections 58 and 63, Agra Tenancy Act, Act 2 of 1901, to eject the defendant Ramjit. The zamindar got a decree for ejectment, and on 26th September 1922, the zamindar was awarded possession. At p. 27 of the record there is the dakhalnama showing the delivery of possession to the zamindar. The entire holding was one of 27 bighas odd of which 22 bighas odd were held by sub-tenants. It seems that out of this area an area of 18 pukka bighas was under rose cultivation. These lands are situated in a part of the Aligarh district where the industry of rose growing for purposes of perfumery is well established.3. Having got a decree for ejectment t...
Har Prasad and ors. Vs. Hori Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.799
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs of the Court of first instance are the appellants before this Court. The respondent No. 2, Chheda Lal, transferred his house together with the right of residence on the site, in favour of the respondent No. 1 Hori Lal, by a deed dated the 9th October, 1917. Seven years later, on 29th August, 1924, the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was lodged by the appellants for recovery of possession of the site giving Hori Lal an option to remove the materials of the house. The plaintiffs' case was that they were zamindars of the site, being the zemindar of the Mahal Bhawani Prasad, and, as a mere tenant of the site, Chheda Lal had no right to transfer it to Hori Lal.2. The defence was that village Yakubganj, where the house is situated has been a town and not a mere agricultural village and there is no presumption in favour of the site of the house being the property of the so-called zemindar of the village.3. The defence further was that the vendor and his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›