Allahabad Court May 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.
Chotey Lal Vs. Laiq Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All15
1. This is an execution appeal by the plaintiff decree-holder. The suit was brought for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed executed by a Hindu father, and a preliminary decree was passed on 13th January 1920, for Rs. 573. The sons of the mortgagor were not parties to the suit. They subsequently brought a suit for a declaration that the debt was without legal necessity and was not binding on the family property. Their suit was decreed on 24th July 1920, the Court holding that though the principal sum was for necessity, it was not proved that there was necessity for the high rate of interest charged. Accordingly it held that the mortgage-debt was good to the extent of Rs. 429-3-0. After this decree the sons were made parties to the final decree in the mortgage suit which was passed on 7th May 1921, for Rs. 429-3-0 only. There was no reference in this final decree to the plaintiff's right to recover the balance of the amount allowed to him under the preliminary decree.2. On 15th April 1...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All267; 118Ind.Cas.228
1. This execution appeal arises out of a suit for possession of land, demolition of certain constructions and costs. The suit was instituted by the widow of a deceased brother and a minor brother. It is admitted that the interests of the two plaintiffs were distinct and separate, but they were cosharers in the land. A joint decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant did not carry out the order of the Court for the removal of the constructions. The minor plaintiff filed an application; for execution of the decree within three years of his attaining majority. The defendant contested the application on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 7, Lim. Act, the application was barred by time. We are of opinion that in this particular case it is impossible to hold that the widow of the deceased brother could have,, without the concurrence of her brother-in-law, given a valid discharge to the judgment-debtor. In these circumstances, limitation did not begin to ru...
Markunday and ors. Vs. Mahabir Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-25-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.560
This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage which is more than 60 years old. There was no time fixed for payment in the deed, and it is admitted that the suit was brought more than 60 years afterwards. The only ground on which it was brought to bring the suit within limitation was by contending that the provisions of Section 20 of the Limitation Act were applicable to the case, and the receipt of profits by the mortgagee gave the mortgagor a fresh start.If this contention were to be accepted, there would never be any limitation in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. The point is well-settled and is covered by several authorities of this Court, and cannot be entertained. Anwar Husain v. Lalmir Khan 23 A. 167; A.W.N. (1903) 223.The appeal is dismissed....
In Re: Three Vakils of Jhansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All396; 110Ind.Cas.686
1. The District Magistrate of Jhansi has reported against one pleader and two vakils, with a view to disciplinary action being taken against them under the Legal Practitioners Act. It appears that a riot case was pending in the Court of the Joint Magistrate of Jhansi which had arisen out of some communal dispute. On 21st March 1928 an application was made to the Joint Magistrate requesting him to adjourn the case on the ground that the accused wanted to move the High Court for a transfer. In spite of the imperative provisions of Section 526, Criminal P.C., the Joint Magistrate refused to adjourn the case, but forwarded the application with his order to the District Magistrate for information. On 22nd March 1928 a fresh application was made to the District Magistrate for transfer of the case from the Court of the Joint Magistrate. The learned District Magistrate disposed of both the applications on 26th March 1928. In a long and considered order he declined to transfer the case, but, to...
Narsingh Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Partap Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All480
1. This is an application inviting us to review an order of 21st May 1927 by which the learned Munsif of Benares purported to extend the time, originally limited by a decree for redemption pay up.2. The suit out of which this application has arisen was one far the redemption of the mortgage, the nature of which we have not been told. The decree, however, that was passed indicates that the mortgage was one by conditional sale, for we find that the decree directed that in case for non-payment of the mortgage money the plaintiffs' right of redemption would be barred. We have assumed, therefore, that the mortgage was one by conditional sale and that the decree in those terms was rightly passed. The last date on which the payment could be made was the 30th April 1927. On 29th April 1927 the plaintiffs came into Court with an application for extension of time. The learned Judge has extended the time by 15 days by the order complained of. In this Court it has been contended that this order wa...
Piare Lal Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All704; 110Ind.Cas.876
Dalal, J.1. On 6th July 1917, the appellant, Piare Lal, obtained a decree for sale against certain persons including one Ganga Sahai. Ganga Sahai was made a party as transferee of part of the mortgaged property. After his death Kishan Lal was a party to the proceedings. This decree was absolute. A certain property was put up to sale on 26th September 1922, and purchased by Piare Lal decree-holder himself. The sale was confirmed, and Piare Lal was put in possession on 4th February 1923. Subsequently Kishan Lal objected under Section 47, Civil P.C., in the execution department on the ground that the property sold contained his own property of which he was purchaser and which was not included in the absolute decree for sale passed on 6th July 1917. This application was dismissed and an appeal from the order of dismissal was rejected by this Court. While the appeal from the decree in the execution department was pending here, Kishan Lal filed the present suit on 12th December 1923, for a d...
Lakhpat Rai Vs. Durga Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All758
1. This is an application in revision by one Lakbpat Rai who was manager of a Dharamsala in Meerut, under a deed executed by Mt. Sundar Kunwar on 9th December 1908.2. One Durga Prasad, who describes himself as a respectable Hindu citizen of Meerut, a Brahman by caste, and a Secretary of the Dharmasthan Sudhar Committee, Meerut, presented an application to the District Judge of Meerut praying that the trustees of the Trust created by Mt. Sundar Kunwar be directed to furnish the petitioner through the District Judge (1) with particulars as to the details of the trust property as they existed on the date of the application (2), the names of persons to whom each property is given on rent (3), the income derived from the trust and the expenditure incurred and (4) the account of the Trust for the last three years to be examined and audited through some certified auditor.3. Objection was taken by Lakhpat Rai, among other grounds, on the ground that the petitioner was not a person interested i...
Hasan Ahmad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All492
ORDERDalal, J.1. In my opinion the convictions and sentences passed in this case cannot possibly be upheld. The Magistrate has convicted the applicant on what he styles as two different charges under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, 1914. One charge appears in the judgment to be failure to produce his license upon demand by a police constable, contrary to Section 8, and the second charge appears to be driving a motor vehicle in an area for which his license was not available, contrary to the provisions of Section 9.2. But when I come to examine the record in order to ascertain exactly with what offences and under what sections the applicant was charged in the trial of the case, I find that he was charged with quite different offences. The summons issued to him under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, was defective, since it omitted to specify the sections of the act or rules made thereunder, for breach of which the applicant was being prosecuted. The seriousness of this defect has been rec...
Mt. Bachhi Kunwar Vs. Ram Lakhan Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All640; 110Ind.Cas.390
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. One Achambhit Mal died in 1911 possessed of some property. His widow died in October 1923, and the present suit was instituted by Achambhit's daughter, Bachchi Kunwar, to obtain possession of what was once her father's property. The suit is directed against Ram Lakhan Mal, the respondent, who is Achambhit Mal's brother's son. Ram Lakhan's case was that his uncle died joint with him and the daughter had no interest in the property. The Court of first instance decreed the suit except as to a small portion of the property with which we are not concerned here. On appeal by Ram Lakhan, the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that although Achambhit Mal and Ram Lakhan were separate in 1907 Ram Lakhan and Achambhit reunited. In second appeal it is contended by Mr. Shastry on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, that the learned Judge has arrived at the finding of reunion, a finding of law, on insufficient materials. His case is that the l...
Budhu and anr. Vs. Udeyram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All665; 110Ind.Cas.383
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must fail on several grounds.2. It appears that one Kanahia had three sons Byikkan, Ghasi and Bhola. The three brothers who were Jats by caste, owned jointly an occupancy holding. Bhola died leaving behind him a widow by karao marriage, Sis Kunwar. Udey Ram the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was Sis Kunwar's son, even if he was not a son of Bhola.3. When Bhola died some time about 1912 or 1913, his brother Bhikkan's sons, the present appellants, were both minors. One of them is still a minor. On the death of Bhola, Ghasi and Sis Kunwar each applied for mutation of names in the revenue records. A compromise was arrived at, An application was made to the revenue Court that. Sis Kunwar's name should be recorded with respect to a third share in Bhola's place. On the same date a registered agreement was drawn up, to which Sis Kunwar and Ghasi were parties. Ghasi purported to act for himself and his nephews, though he did not say so in th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »