Allahabad Court June 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.
Ram Swarup and ors. Vs. Bunyad Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1929All126
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants first party against a decree of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff originally sued for possession of the property detailed in the plaint. The first ground in second appeal is that as the plaintiff sued for possession the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the plaintiff was in possession and in granting the plaintiff a decree for declaration only. But as noted in the judgment of the Court of first instance an amendment of the plaint was allowed which changed the suit from one for possession into a suit for declaration only. The facts of this case are as follows; On 17th March 1866, Mt. Najiban, owner of the property, made a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 250 to Gobind Sahai, the predecessor of defendants second party.2. On 20th July 1873, Mt. Najiban made a second usufructuary mortgage of the same property and some other property for Rs. 1,900 to Bul Chand, etc., predecessors of defendants first party. That mortgage co...
In Re: Vakil of Azamgarh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All439
1. In this case what purported on the face of it to be a notice to Madho Prasad Khanna, Vakil of Azamgarh, was issued from this Court purporting to call on him to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the Legal Practitioners Act in that he was guilty of professional misconduct in respect of certain facts which were then set out. The notice was dated 13th June 1928.2. The reference to the Legal Practitioners Act, while it is an error, is not an error of any material importance. The Court apart from another objection that has been taken, would have had power to deal with Madho Prasad Khanna under Section 8, Letters Patent.3. Another objection has, however, been taken which goes to the root of the matter. The Bar Councils Act, 38 of 1926, received the assent of the Governor-General on 9th September 1926. By Section 1, Sub-section (3) it was provided that Section 1 and Sections 2, 17, 18 and 19 should come into force at once; while the rest of the Act or any portion thereof shou...
Murli Vs. Ghamar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1930All22
1. This second appeal arises from a suit brought by some members of a joint Hindu family for a declaration that the deed of sale in respect of their house, dated 27th. July 1927, executed by Bhagwan Das on their behalf as next friend when they were minors and by Mt. Munni in favour of the present defendant-appellant was invalid, and claiming restoration of possession to the plaintiffs. The sale consideration was Rs. 1,400, and the plaintiffs claimed that there had been no necessity for the execution of the sale deed. The defence was that the sale had been concluded in order to pay off the plaintiffs' debts, and there was also a plea that Rs. 1,000 had been spent by the defendant-appellant on the house.2. Both the Courts below have found that legal necessity has been proved to the extent of Rs. 967 out of the sale consideration of Rs. 1,400 and they have decreed the plaintiffs' claim on condition that they repay Rs. 967 the sum which is found to have been advanced for legal necessity.3....
Bhagwati Prasad and ors. Vs. E. Peglar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All716; 110Ind.Cas.872
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Bhagwati Prasad and others against a decree of the lower appellate Court awarding arrears of rent against defendant 2 and not against defendant 1 and refusing possession by ejectment. The facts are that defendant 1 took two plots from the plaintiff on lease on a ground rent of Rs. 48 and Rs. 2 respectively and built a house on those plots. In 1919, defendant 1 sold the house to defendant 2, and it has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that there was an agreement between the defendant and Bhagwati Prasad plaintiff lambardar that defendant 2 would alone be responsible for the rent in future, and that defendant 1 would no longer be responsible for the rent. It was argued that this finding was only in regard to the Rs. 48 rent, but clearly the finding is in regard to the whole ground rent, i, e.. Rs. 50 for both plots. I am bound by that finding of fact. It is found that defendant 2 did not pay the rent and a decree for...
Mt. Bali Kuar Vs. Khamani Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All762
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant lambardar. The plaintiff cosharer sued for profits for the year Fasli 1329 and obtained a decree on gross rental from the Court of first instance. The plaintiff also sued for a share of arrears of rental of the previous years. The lower appellate Court granted the plaintiff & share based on the gross arrears of rental duo in Fasli 1329 for the years Fasli 1326-1327 and 1328 in addition to the decree on gross rental for Fasli 1329. It was argued in the first place that because the plaintiff had previously obtained a decree for profits on actual collections for the years Fasli 1326 to 1328 therefore it was not open to the lower appellate Court to find that the defendant-lambardar was negligent in regard to the arrears for those years. But in the previous suit the question of negligence was for negligence during the period Fasli 1326-1328. The finding of the lower appellate Court is in regard to negligence in Fasli 1329. These are sepa...
Kuer Rani Dan Kunwar Vs. Rameshwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.609
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Zemindar against an appellate decree dismissing her suit for demolition of a house and possession of a site.2. The facts are that one Dwarka Das, who was a shop-keeper and also for a short time held an agricultural holding sold on 20th April, 1922, his house to the respondent-defendant. The respondent proceeded to erect a substantial pucca house at a cost of about Rs. 2.000, During this period the karinda of the zemindar did not make any objection to the transfer or the erection of the house. I agree with the lower Appellate Court that the circumstances indicate that the karinda must have had knowledge of the purchase and construction of the house. The lower Appellate Court has held that this amounts to an acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. Reference for the general proposition of the doctrine of acquiescence has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to two rulings of the English Courts, which merely lay down th...
Murli Vs. Ghammar and ors. and Muni
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-22-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.385
1. This second appeal arises from, a suit brought by some members of a joint Hindu family for a declaration that the deed of sale in respect of their house, dated the 27th of July, 1927, executed by Bhagwan Das on their behalf as next friend when they were minors and by Musammat Munni in favour of the present defendant-appellant was invalid, and claiming restoration of possession to the plaintiffs. The sale consideration was Rs. 1,400, and the plaintiffs claimed that there had been no necessity for the execution of the sale-deed. The defence was that the sale had been concluded in order to pay off the plaintiffs' debts, and there was also a plea that Rs. 1,000 had been spent by the defendant-appellant on the house.2. Both the Courts below have found that legal necessity has been proved to the extent of Rs. 967 out of the sale consideration of Rs. 1400, and they have decreed the plaintiffs' claim on condition that they repay Rs. 967, the Sum which is found to have been advanced for lega...
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Piarey Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All505
1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by several of the members of a joint Hindu family for a declaration that an adoption of defendant-respondent 1, Piarey Lal by defendant-respondent 2, Mt. Champa Devi, widow of Durga Prasad, was invalid. Darga Prasad was, as is now admitted, a member of the joint Hindu family to which the plaintiffs belong, when he died in August 1921. A deed of authority to adopt a son was executed in favour of Mt. Champa Devi on 1st August 1921, and registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar on the same day. But it was claimed that at that time Durga Prasad was delirious and unconscious, and that the deed could not be considered to be legally valid. On the facts the lower Court has found that the deed was valid. But before considering this part of the case we propose to deal with the legal point that has been argued at some length before us, viz., that even if it be assumed that Durga Prasad gave authority to his widow to adopt a son, the power to adopt bec...
Rukia and anr. Vs. Mewa Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928All746
1. This appeal relates to a house situate in Purwa Hirawan in the city of Cawnpore which has been valued at Rs. 7,000.2. This house admittedly belonged to one Ishridas who died leaving a widow, Mt. Bhagni, and a daughter Mt. Bhakni. The daughter, who was married to one Gharibe, predeceased her mother without leaving any issue. Gharibe married Mt. Sukhia who was impleaded as defendant 1 in the suit as originally brought. She died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court.3. Mt. Bhagni executed a simple mortgage of the house in controversy in favour of Debidin on 6th June 1921. She died on 27th April 1924.4. One Chokhey filed a suit in forma pauperis on 26th May 1924, for recovery of possession of the house and certain moveables on the allegation that he was the reversionary heir of Ishridas, that the mortgage executed by Mt. Bhagni was without legal necessity, that upon her death Mt. Sukhia, the widow of Gharibe, and Mt. Rukia, defendant 2, who was the daughter of one Bans, unc...
Musammat Rukia and anr. Vs. Mewa Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-21-1928
Reported in: 111Ind.Cas.751
1. This appeal relates to a house situate in Purwa Hirawan in the city of Cawnpore which has been valued at Rs. 7,000. This house admittedly belonged to one Ishwaridas who died leaving a widow, Musammat Bhagni, and a daughter Musammat Bhakni. The daughter, who was married to one Gharibe, pre-deceased her mother without leaving any issue. Gharibe married Musammat Sukhia who was imp leaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit as originally brought. She died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court.2. Musammat Bhagni executed a simple mortgage of the house in controversy in favour of Debidin on the 6th June, 1921. She died on the 27th April, 1924.3. One Chokhey filed a suit in forma pauperis on the 26th May, 1924, for recovery of possession of the house and certain moveables on the allegation that he was the reversionary heir of Ishwaridas, that the mortgage executed by Musammat Bhagni was without legal necessity ; that upon her death Musammat Sukhia, the widow of Gharibe, and Musamma...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »