Allahabad Court January 1929 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.
Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Kallu Mian Sajhi Firm
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All277
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint is waqf alalaulad (waqf in favour of the descendants) which is in possession of the plaintiff as mutawalli, and that it is not fit to be attached or sold in execution of a decree in favour of the defendant. The dates of the causes of action for the two declarations claimed were stated in the plaint to be the date of the execution of the deed of waqf and the date when the plaintiff's objection in the execution department to the attachment was disallowed. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 1,489-10-3 for the purposes of jurisdiction and later on amended the valuation to Rs. 12,000. No objection was taken in the written statement as regards the over-valuation. It is possible that this was due to a mistake, as suggested in argument on behalf of the respondent, in not seeing that the copy of the plaint supplied to the defendant was also amended. That copy, however, has not bee...
Munshi Sheo Prasad Vs. Nawal Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.871
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of a fourth share in certain village property. The plaintiff Sheo Prasad along with his deceased brother's widow Musammat Mohan Kunwar executed a deed of gift in favour of the defendants and their brother on the 19th of January, 1915. Later on the donors brought a suit for the cancellation of that document. The suit was actually decreed by the first Court but on appeal to the High Court the suit was dismissed on the 14th of December, 1920. As the valuation was more than Rs. 10,000 and the decree of the first Court had been reversed an application for leave to appeal to their Lordships of the Privy Council was filed. That application was allowed and leave was granted. But apparently before the full security had been deposited and the appeal could be declared to have been admitted under Order XLV, Rule 8 a compromise duly signed by the parties was filed in this Court. It was sent...
Ram NaraIn Das Vs. Temple of Thakur Sir Radha Ballabji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.871
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for possession of certain plots of land which had been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Meerut. The case for the plaintiff was that the plots in suit, which were situate in three or four villages in Tahsil Baghpat, district of Meerut had been the subject of a suit No. 551 of 1921, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, and the temple of Thakur Sri Radha Ballabji, Chanchal Das and Govind Das were the plaintiffs and Ram Narain Das appellant was the respondent. That suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, who were given one half, and Ram Narain Das was given the other half. That suit related to zamindari property known as khewat No. 64 and the plots now in suit. The plaintiffs were dispossessed by the defendant after the name of Govind Das was expunged from the revenue papers by an order of the Collector dated the 8th of July, 1924.2. The defence to the suit was that the suit was not maintainable, and it was barred by th...
Ganga Sahai and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All271
Dalal, J.1. The three applicants have been convicted of an offence under Section 70, Canal and Drainage Act (Northern India), No. 8 of 1873. It applies to these provinces and to the Punjab. The applicants are much concerned at not knowing the exact clause of Section 70 under which they have been convicted. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has been pleased to satisfy their curiosity by stating that the clause is No. (2) of Section 70 in so far that they interfered with the supply of water through a canal passing through their field. It is hoped that this explanation will now satisfy them.2. The argument of learned Counsel was that the water-course was private and not the property of the Canal Department, and that, therefore, the complainant had no right to flow water through it. The lower appellate Court has rightly pointed out that there being evidence of the supply of water through this water-course for thirty years it must be presumed that either there was an agreement betwe...
Emperor Vs. Ram Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All273
1. This is described as a reference by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. It appears that the police secured the institution of proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C. against two persons Roshan and Ramlal. The police desired that these two men should be bound down for a period of three years each. The case was heard at the usual great length which is one of the unfortunate characteristics of this type of case, and the Magistrate eventually discharged Ramlal and bound down Roshan for a period of only one year. This did not satisfy the police, and the Prosecuting Inspector approached the District Magistrate with a number of written criticizms of the order of the trial Magistrate and concluded his notes as followsIt is therefore requested that the High Court may kindly be moved to enhance the term of one year's notice of Roshan to three years and to order the retrial of Ramlal under Section 437, Criminal P.C.2. The type-written copy, which is all that can be traced in this Court, i...
Niranjan Prasad Vs. Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All302
1. This was a suit for recovery of separate possession of a one-third share in certain house property and moveable property. The property originally belonged to Chote Lal the common ancestor of the parties. The pedigree showing the relationship between the parties will be found at p. 17 The plaintiff's case was that the parties and Chhote Lal were members of a joint family and that the property in suit was joint family property. After Chhote Lal's death the plaintiff was maintained by Behari Lal who was the manager of the joint family but in 1924 the defendants refused to give the plaintiff some money and the plaintiff was accordingly compelled to bring this suit for possession of his separate share. The principal defences were that the family was not joint but that the plaintiff's father had separated from the other members of the family before his death in 1898 and the plaintiff himself had been brought up by his father-in-law.2. It was further pleaded that the property in suit was t...
Bachchi Lal and ors. Vs. Debi DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All300
1. First Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1926 are connected and are defendants appeals arising out of two suits for pre-emption. Under a sale-deed dated 9th August 1924, shares in two khatas Nos. 2 and 7 in mahal Mustaqil and mahal Ihtamli of village Tirmau were sold to the defendants. Two suits were separately instituted. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-vendees were strangers and their names were wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The defence raised by the defendants was that they were cosharers on the same footing as the plaintiff. The defendants claimed title through one Jagannath. Before the trial commenced the plaintiff's counsel made it clear that he was not admitting the title of Jagannath at all. The Court below has found in favour of the plaintiff and has decreed the claim except as regards mahal Ihtamli in which the defendants had become cosharers by virtue of another deed of gift dated 15th November 1920.2. Sewak was a proprietor in this village and he died some ti...
Mangali Pershad and anr. Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All365; 116Ind.Cas.875
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of one-third share of a house. The house originally belonged to Mulu and on his death his three sons, Narpat, Ram Sahai and Alkhi became joint owners of one-third share each. Narpat mortgaged his one-third share in 1901 to his brother, Ram Sahai for Rs. 150, with possession. The plaintiffs are the son and grandson of Narpat. They allege that they redeemed the mortgage in 1922 by payment of the mortgage money to Anokhey Lal, son of Ram Sahai. They alleged that in spite of the redemption Anokhey Lal and defendants 2 to 4, who are the sons of Alkhi, refused to allow the plaintiffs to take possession; hence the suit.2. The defence set up by defendants 2 to 4 was that in 1909 there was a partition of the house between the three brothers. The partition was in accordance with an arbitration award. According to the terms of the award Narpat relinquished his one-third share in the house in consideration of release from liability to pay the mort...
Girdhari and ors. Vs. Jodha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All541; 114Ind.Cas.893
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for a declaration that a grove was the property of the plaintiffs and if the plaintiffs were found by the Court not to be in possession for possession in the alternative.2. The facts which led up to the present suit are that one Jagan Nath, who held a mortgage of the grove in question from the predecessors-in-interest of the defendants, purchased it at an auction sale on 23rd January 1911. On 15th May 1911 formal possession was delivered to Jagan Nath. It appears that the names of the defendants continued in the revenue records till 1922 when they were removed and that of Jagan Nath substituted. Jagan Nath sold the grove in suit to the plaintiffs on 23rd January 1924. The defence to the action was that Jagan Nath was never in actual physical possession of the grove and that the defendants had, after the auction sale, entered into an agreement, by which Jagan Nath had agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 600' in three years in full satisfaction of th...
Sheo NaraIn Dube Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.17
Dalal, J.1. There is nothing to distinguish this case from the ruling in the case of Her Prasad Tewari v. Sheo Gobind Tewari 67 Ind. Cas. 793 : 20 A.L.J. 318 : 44 A. 486; A.I.R. 1922 All. 134. The learned Counsel for the applicant quoted the ruling in the case of Jarbandhan v. Badri 83 Ind. Cas. 19 : 45 A. 621 : A.I.R. 1924 All. 80 : 21 A.L.J. 480. The distinction between the cases is very clear. If a mortgage prohibited by law comes into existence on the money being borrowed, the entire contract of mortgage is void under Section 24 of the Indian Contract Act, and that being so the personal covenant in the mortgage also falls along with the contract of mortgage. If, however, the mortgage was to come into existence on the breach of a personal covenant and first of all a personal covenant to pay was entered into, the failure of the mortgage would not lead to the failure of the personal covenant. In the present case the mortgage was secured for the money borrowed and there was no personal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »