Allahabad Court April 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.
Sheopal Singh Vs. Durga Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All332
Dalal, J.1. The grounds of revision contained in the application are:(1) That the suit was not cognizable by the Court of Small Causes.(2) That the Small Cause Court Judge bad made so many slips in the record and the decision that he could not have brought his mind to bear on the facts of the case.2. Various decisions were quoted before me. The suit was brought by a plaintiff to recover a fixed amount in excess of the value of the goods supplied by the defendant to him, and for which he had made payments in advance. It was argued here that this was a case for accounting, and removed from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under Article 31, Schedule 2, Small Causes Courts Act. A suit for an account is removed from the jurisdiction of that Court. The question is whether this is a suit for account. Most of the rulings referred to above deal with the particular facts of the case. The judgment of Mukerjee, J., in Kshetranath v. Kalidasi Dasi [1918] 27 C.L.J. 96, deals with the ma...
Krishna Ram and ors. Vs. Bachchoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.86
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued the father and sons of his deceased debtor on foot of a promissory note. It is admitted that Vishnu Ram debtor and the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family. The learned Judge has not decided that the debt was incurred on behalf of the family by Vishnu Ram for the benefit of the family. He has, however, held that the debt was not tainted with immorality, so it would be the pious duty of the sons to pay it. The father, however, cannot be held liable. A decree in terms of Section 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be passed against the sons.2. A question was raised in this Court whether liability such as is enunciated in Section 53 would arise out of a joint family property in the hands of the minor sons to pay the debt. In my opinion that question does not arise in original proceedings prior to the passing of the decree. A decree may be passed under the provisions of Section 52, and it will be for the execution department to decide whether the...
Nihal Vs. Niadar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.440
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal could not be argued except for the fact that it was contended that the case of Bijai Misir v. Kali Prasad 41 Ind. Cas. 912 : 39 A. 469 : 15 A.L.J. 496 (F.B.), lent support to the appellant's contention.2. Very briefly the facts are these. The respondents sought a declaration, by the suit out of which this appeal has arisen that they were the owners of a certain enclosure described as No. 49/1. Their grievance was that the present appellant, the 3rd defendant in the suit, had hypothecated it as his own property and the creditor had brought it to sale with the result that the defendant No. 2 purchased it. The sale has been set aside and now the contest is between the appellant and the plaintiffs alone. The learned Judge in the Court below has found that the property does belong to the plaintiffs and that is a question of fact which has been arrived at in a clear judgment.3. It has, however, been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit is...
Ali Mohammad Vs. Jagannath Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All666
Dalal, J.1. A suit instituted on 5th January 1927 was alleged to be within time by reason of an acknowledgment of 15th March 1925. The question then arose whether that acknowledgment was admissible in evidence. It was executed in the Gwalior territory at Ujjain, and a one anna stamp of the Gwalior State affixed thereto. The account-book was Produced in British Court at Cawnpore on 5th January 1927, but not stamped till more than three months afterwards. Under Section 18, Stamp Act, every instrument chargeable with duty executed out of British India and not being a bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note, may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in British India. In the present case the stamp duty was not paid within time, and under Section 35 of the Act the acknowledgment shall not be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any Court of law. The proviso as to payment of the duty and penalty does not apply as the instrument was chargeable with a duty of on...
Durag Das Vs. Gori Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All327
1. This is a second appeal in which the following two points have been raised:(1) Is an order dismissing an objection under the proviso to Rule 58, Order 21 on the ground that it is filed intentionally or unnecessarily late, an order which comes under Order 21, Rule 63 and subject to the result of any suit instituted under that rule, a conclusive order?(2) Does such an order prevent the objector from raising a claim again in the capacity of a defendant?2. The facts in the present case are as follows:3. One Sarnam made a usufructuary mortgage of property in list (B) of the plaint with the appellant, defendant 1. Durag Das. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a simple money decree against Sarnam and in execution of that decree brought the property in list (A) to auction sale and purchased it himself. During the pendency of the execution proceedings Durag Das, the appellant purchased the property on 27th April 1919, from Sarnam. The appellant filed an objection to the attachment and sale on...
Oudh Behari Lal and ors. Vs. Collector of Etah and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All625
Dalal, J.1. Obviously the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has made a slip in overlooking the provisions of Section. 15 (2), Limitation Act. The right to sue accrued to the plaintiffs on the death of a certain female on 10th February 1911. They instituted the suit on 9th April 1923. The lower appellate Court pointed out that as twelve years had elapsed the plaintiff's remedy was barred, presumably under the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act. He however did not remember that two months notice was necessary to the Court of Wards and the benefit of that time has to be given to the plaintiffs. In computing the period of limitation; prescribed for any suit of which notice has been given in accordance with the requirements of any enactment for the time being in force the period of such notice shall be excluded. The defendant is a ward of Court and under the local Court of Wards Act a notice of two months is necessary to the Court of Wards before a suit can be instituted. The...
Ram NaraIn and anr. Vs. Mt. Nandrani Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All128; 114Ind.Cas.868
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of property which was transferred so long ago as 16th January 1865 under a sale-deed executed by Mt. Chunni, the mother, and Mt. Tursa Kunwar, the widow of Jawahir Lal, deceased, whose reversioners the present plaintiffs are The learned Subordinate Judge found that the sale could not have been without legal necessity, and the transferees had discharged the burden that lay on them. It appears that Jawahir Lal, when he died, left a mother and a widow named above and a daughter Mt. Jhamman Kunwar. Probably Mt. Jhamman Kunwar's son Jagannath Prasad was not born then. Jhamman Kunwar was married to Raghabar Dayal who was the son of Chhote Lal. If Jagannath Prasad who was born subsequently had survived Mt. Jhamman Kunwar his mother, the plaintiffs would have had no locus standi to sue. As it happened he died on 9th March 1917 and his mother died after him on 14th July 1921. Succession accordingly opened on the de...
Ghafoor Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All334; 118Ind.Cas.524
1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Collector of Cawnpore placing the names of the applicants upon a list of touts in exercise of the powers vested in him by Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. This action was taken by him in consequence of a resolution passed by the Bar Association of Cawnpore, forwarding to him a list of persons named by the Association as touts, which list included the names of all the applicants, and also of some other persons. All the applicants, have objected to the action of the Collector on two, and only two, grounds: first, that the notice convening the meeting at which this resolution was passed was not sufficiently definite to comply with the explanation to Sub-section (1), 8. 36, Legal Practitioners Act; and, second, that the meeting at which the resolution was passed was not held in compliance with the rules of the Association. We shall deal with these points separately.2. As to the first: the explanation to Section 36 runs as ...
Kayasth Patshala Vs. Sahtu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All559; 114Ind.Cas.898
Mukerji, J.1. This and the connected appeals, 1944 to 1947, arise out of very similar facts and will be disposed of by the same judgment. The plaintiff-appellant is the same in each case and the respondents represent five groups of fishermen each group owning a boat used for the purpose of fishing.2. The plaintiff's case, as stated in the plaint, was that in the village of Sadiapur in the district of Allahabad the defendants who were fishermen by caste and profession carried on the profession of plying boats, catching fish and selling them. In para. 3 the plaintiff puts his case as follows:The defendants live in the said village. They ply boats and catch fish in the Jamna and land the fish and sell it at the ghats in the said village.3. Then the plaintiff says that according to the village custom and conditions laid down in the wajib-ul-arz, all the fishermen in the village deliver 1 seers of Rohu fish per boat per day to the zamindars as rent. The plaintiff then says that the village ...
Anrudh Kumar and anr. Vs. Lachhmi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All500
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 33,000 and odd principal and Rs. 5,000 and odd interest. It appears that Lachhmi Chand, plaintiff, had two brothers Mohar and Baldeo and they were all separate. The defendant Anrudh Kumar is the son of Mohar and defendant 2, Mt. Kamal Devi, is Anrudh Kumar's wife. On 24th August 1920, Baldeo died as a separated owner. Mohar had predeceased him. Under the Hindu law if Baldeo had died intestate Lachhmi Chand would have succeeded to the entire estate. Anrudh Kumar, who was not the heir-at-law, apart from alleging jointness, set up a will in his favour. In the lifetime of Baldeo some land had been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act and he died while the proceedings were pending A sum of Rs. 33,000 and odd was awarded as compensation for the property so acquired. On 14th March this amount was paid to Anrudh Kumar who claimed to be the heir of the deceased Baldeo. A suit was instituted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›