Allahabad Court March 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.
Jai Devi Kunwar Vs. Kalyan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All376; 110Ind.Cas.662
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of the properties sold under a deed dated 18th September 1923. The suit was instituted on 16th September 1924. According to the sale-deed the sale consideration was Rs. 22,000. Out of this Rs. 4,000 were admittedly paid in cash to the vendors, and two sums of money were left in the hands of the vendees for payment to two named creditors under two promissory notes, and three further sums were left in their hands for payment to certain prior mortgagees. It is an admitted fact that the defendants vendees did not discharge any of these previous debts. The plaintiff had actually alleged that the sale consideration was inflated and that the amounts said to be due on the two promissory notes were fictitious. She further claimed that, inasmuch as the defendants who were liable to discharge the previous debts forthwith had omitted to pay off those debts they must make good to the plaintiffs the amount of interest ...
Sohan Bibi Vs. Baijnath Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All293
Mukerji, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises under the following circumstances.2. The appellant Sohan Bibi instituted a suit in the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court at Benares, exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge, against several persons, to obtain a declaration that a certain compromise entered into in a certain case, the decree that followed the compromise and the transfer of property that was to take place in pursuance of the compromise, were not binding on her. The suit was transferred to the Court of the District Judge of Benares and was decided by him. The litigation had a chequered career. To start with, the District Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the decree of the Court below was set aside and the suit was remanded for trial on the merits. The District Judge again dismissed the suit and on appeal this Court set aside the decree of the learned Judge and decreed the suit in part. There was an appeal to the Privy Council by the de...
inspector Singh and anr. Vs. Kharak Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All403
Mukerji, J.1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The plaintiffs are two in number and are the sons of defendant 1 Kharak Singh. Defendant 1 made a simple mortgage of a portion of the ancestral joint family property in favour of the remaining defendants by a document dated 19th September 1921 for the sum of Rs. 7,000. The plaintiff's case was that their father was immoral and within three years of the death of their grandfather had squandered away a sum of Rs. 20,000 left in cash by the grandfather and had created charges to the amount of Rs. 20,000 on the family property. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the mortgage of 19th September 1921 was executed for a purpose which was immoral and which did not benefit the family and that therefore the family property was not liable under the mortgage.2. Defendant 1 did not enter an appearance. The other defendants who are father and sons, contended that the mortgage was executed...
Ajodhya Prasad Vs. Rikhnath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All305
Dalal, J.1. It is unfortunate that the opposite party was not represented, but the Court had the advantage of very valuable argument addressed to it by Mr. Bhagwati Shankar. He has placed a printed note before the Court and carefully explained how the words therein cannot be said to offend against the provisions of Section 25, Paper Currency Act (10 of 1923) which replaced previous similar Acts which dated back from 1871 down. What Section 25, Paper Currency Act, prohibits is this:No person in British India shall draw, accept make or issue any bill of exchange, hundi, promissory note on engagement for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand... of any such person.2. The document in suit consists of a promissory note and a receipt. In the receipt the promissory note is described as 'indul talab' meaning 'on demand,' In the note itself the words are that the money would be paid mangne par unko ya jisko wok dilwaen unke hukm par (on demand to-him, that is to the lender, or to whom...
Bhogi Ram Vs. Kishori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All289
Boys, J.1. This appeal arises out of a decree of the lower appellate Court setting aside the decree of the trial Court allowing the plaintiff's claim on a promissory note. The suit of the plaintiff was a simple one on a promissory note. The answer of the defendant, however, disclosed other dealings; and it has been round by both Courts that the plaintiff's denials of those dealings were false.2. The language used throughout, and particularly in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, has not been as clear as it might well have been, and a more detailed statement of the pleadings and the 'findings is necessary than is usually the case in such suits. The defendant pleaded:(a) (Further plea No. 2). That he, the defendant, used to hand over gur, sugar and grain to the plaintiff to be sold on account of the defendant.(b) (Further plea No. 2). That pending the sale and recovery of the price of the goods plaintiff used to advance to the defendant sums of money bearing interest,.(i) 'on the...
Qadri Jahan Begam Vs. Fazal Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All494; 110Ind.Cas.573
Kendall, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a dower debt brought by Mt. Qadri Jahan Begam against her husband Sheikh Fazal Ahmad. The suit was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that it was not proved that any part of the dower debt was prompt and accordingly the suit was premature. An appeal was preferred by the wife and was pending in this Court. Apparently some registered document was executed purporting to be a compromise we are not concerned with its terms here) on the basis of which an application was made to the Subordinate Judge signed by both the parties to this appeal, to the effect that they had agreed that the suit should be dismissed without any further adjudication and that the parties were to bear their own costs. A request was made to the Court below that 'the said application for compromise after due verification be forwarded to the High Court so that the appeal may be dismissed in terms of it.' The learned Subordinate Judge deputed his munsa...
Mt. Mubarak Bano and anr. Vs. Ali Raza and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All556
Sen, J.1. This is plaintiffs' appeal. The suit was one for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs. 492-8-0 being two thirds of Rs. 738-12-0, which had been deposited in the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly by the judgment debtor in Suit No. 122 of 1921 in re: Baqar Raza v. Nazir Husain.2. The plaintiffs and Mt. Haidri Banu were cosharers in the same mahal or mahals of which Mt. Haidri Banu was the lambardar. Mt. Haidri Banu had engaged the services of one Nazir Husain to make collections in the mahal or mahals on her behalf. Certain collections were made by Nazir Husain and were not handed over to Mt. Haidri Banu. The lady in the meantime died. She was succeeded by Baqar Raza and the other defendants to the present action. Baqar Raza instituted a suit against Nazir Husain for the recovery of the unpaid collections. The suit was numbered and registered as Suit No. 122 of 1921 and a decree for Rs. 738-12-0 was passed in favour of Baqar Raza. Nazir Husain deposited this a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›