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.
Malik Singh and ors. Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All440; 118Ind.Cas.43
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. On 8th July 1924, and 1st September 1924, Shiam Lal purchased shares in a village under two sale-deeds from two different cosharers for Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 18,000 respectively. On 7th July 1925, a suit for pre-emption was brought by the present plaintiffs to pre-empt both these sales. On the same day about two hours after the filing of the plaint a sale-deed by Shiam Lal in favour of the contesting defendant Umrao Singh was presented for registration under which the two shares were transferred in lieu of Rs. 33,000. The whole amount was not paid in cash and Umrao Singh executed a mortgage deed for Rs. 44,200 hypothecating the property transferred to him as well as some other property belonging to him. On 8th October 1925, the present plaintiffs impleaded Umrao Singh in their suit and got the plaint amended by adding his name therein and also a new para. 7-A, in which it was alleged that the sale-deed in his favour wa...
Raghubar Saran and ors. Vs. Jumna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All208
Dalal, J.1. This was a suit brought for the recovery of certain ornaments from the defendants, or their value. The defendants are the sons of a person who kept the ornaments promising to return them. It is said that the case is one of misappropriation, and the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be barred under Arts. 35 and 43A, Sch. 2, Provincial Small Cause Court Act. There is no allegation of misappropriation in the plaint. The ornaments may have been lost, or the defendants sons may have no knowledge of the ornaments. There is no allegation of a criminal charge against the defendants, and on the facts of the case no criminal offence could be made out against them.2. The second argument was that the suit was barred by time. In my opinion Article 48, Limitation Act, was rightly applied by the trial Court. In this connexion it was pointed out that by the application of that article a criminal charge was assumed. Such is not the case, because the first word deals with loss, and...
Chheda Lal and ors. Vs. Ghulam Abbas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All242
Mukerji, J.1. The only question urged before me is that the lower Courts were wrong in holding that the defendant acknowledged the subsistence of the mortgage and their liability to be redeemed within the meaning of Section 19, Lim. Act. It appears that the mortgage sought to be redeemed was made on 30th January 1864. A suit for redemption was brought by certain persons against the present appellants in 1904. The written statement filed by the defendant-appellants has been put in the record of this case and it was on foot of that written statement that the learned Judges in the Court below held that there was a good acknowledgment on the part of the defendants. To satisfy myself in the matter, I sent for the record of the previous litigation and now the plaint and the written statement are both before me. The plaintiffs of the suit of 1904 stated in para. 2 of the plaint as follows:The land aforesaid (described in para. 1 of the plaint) is in possessory mortgage with the defendants Nos...
Raghubir Saran and ors. Vs. Lala Jumna Prasad Alias Jamna Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.785
Dalal, J.1. This was a suit brought for the recovery of certain ornaments from the defendants, or their value. The defendants are the sons of a person who kept the ornaments promising to return them. It is said that the case is one of misappropriation, and the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be barred under Articles 35 and 43 A of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. There is no allegation of misappropriation in the plaint. The ornaments may have been lost, or the defendant's sons may have no knowledge of the ornaments. There is no allegation of a criminal charge against the defendants, and on the facts of the case no criminal offence could be made out against them.2. The second argument was that the suit was barred by time. In my opinion Article 48 of the Limitation Act was rightly applied by the trial Court. In this connection it was pointed out that by the application of that Article a criminal charge was assumed. Such is not the case, because, t...
Kallu Shah and ors. Vs. Mohammad Ehsanullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.629
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were the owners in possession of 175 sehams out of 600 sehams in a certain zemindari property. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs were owners of 121 sehams of which the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 owned 67 and the plaintiffs Nos. 7 to 12 54 The suit of the plaintiffs Nos. 7 to 12 was decreed. The suit of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 6 was dismissed on the ground that a suit for declaration was time-barred under Article 180 of the Limitation Act, because on the 22nd of October, 1895 a Settlement Officer's Court held that these plaintiffs were not entitled to the share claimed by them. These plaintiffs thereupon appealed to the District Judge and on failure they have come here in second appeal. The law on the subject has been clearly stated in several Bench rulings of this Court, particularly in the case of Akbar Khan v. Turaban 1 Ind. Cas. 557 : 5 A.L.J. 737 : 31 A. 9 : A.W.N. (1908) 252 : 4 M.L.T. 444. There is a Single Judge rul...
B. Ghurpat Sahi Vs. Mahabir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All218; 113Ind.Cas.817
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of proprietary title. The defendant, brought a suit against the present plaintiff in the revenue Court for ejectment alleging that the present plaintiff was his sub-tenant. On a plea of proprietary title raised by him, the present plaintiff was referred to the civil Court to obtain a declaration of his title. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint was that he was the zemindar of the village and the defendant was originally the occupancy tenant of the plots in dispute. The defendant then abandoned the lands which came into the plaintiff's possession as his khudkasht and have been cultivated by him. The defence was that prior to the plaintiff becoming a cosharer, his father had taken the lands in question for cultivation as a sub-tenant from the defendant's father, and that, therefore, the sub-tenancy continued even though the plaintiff subsequently became the zemindar. There was a further plea t...
Gur Diyal Vs. Sukhnandan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All236
Dalal, J.1. The grounds of appeal may be taken up one by one. The suit was one for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree has been passed by the Court of the Munsif of Dehra Dun. An appeal to the District Judge of Saharanpur failed, and this is a second appeal by the defendant. In the first two grounds it was urged that the Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. Those grounds, however, were not argued. What was argued before me was that the suit ought to have been filed in a civil Court in Lucknow, and not at Dehra Dun. In the present case the partnership was entered into at Dehra Dun. So clearly the cause of action arose partly there. The business was to be carried on at Lucknow So under the provisions of Section 20(c), Civil P.C., it was open to the plaintiff to choose the place of suit between Dehra and Lucknow. Two rulings were cited by learned Counsel for the defendant appellant; Niranjan Singh v. Kundan Singh [1919] 17 A.L.J. 10...
Brij Raj Saran Singh Vs. Basant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All561
1. This appeal arises from a suit filed in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Meerut in which the first five plaintiffs, Kumar Basant Singh and others, claimed to be the reversioners to the estate left by one Khushal Singh on his death in 1879, and as such to be entitled to possession of the estate on the death of his widow. The other plaintiffs are speculators who have purchased part of the plaintiffs' claim. Khushal Singh left a widow, Rani Raghubir Kunwar, who succeeded to the estate on her husband's death, and in 1903 she adopted Brijraj Saran Singh, the principal defendant, who is the appellant in this appeal. Other appeals have been filed by various transferees of parts of the disputed property from Rani Raghubir Kunwar or from Brijraj Saran Singh or from both. The decision in the suit depended on the validity of the adoption of Brijraj Saran Singh by Rani Raghubir Kunwar in 1903.2. The plaintiffs claimed that there had been no adoption, and that even if the ceremon...
Babu Gur Dayal Vs. Pandit Sukhnandan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.824
Dalal, J.1. The grounds of appeal may be taken up one by one. The suit was one for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. A preliminary decree has been passed by the Court of the Munsif of Dehra Dun. An appeal to the District Judge of Saharanpur failed, and this is a second appeal by the defendant. In the first two grounds it was urged that the Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. Those grounds, however, were not argued. What was argued before me was that the suit ought to have been filed in a Civil Court in Lucknow, and not at Dehra Dun. In the present case the partnership was entered into at Dehra Dun. S0 clearly the cause of action arose partly there. The business was to be carried on at Lucknow. So under the provisions of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure it was open to the plaintiff to choose the place of suit between Dehra Dun and Lucknow. Two rulings were cited by learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant Niranjan Singh v. Kundan Sin...
Mul Chand Vs. Piare Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.752
Dalal, J.1. The lower Appellate Court was mistaken in refusing jurisdiction. The suit of the plaintiff applicant was really dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8, whatever the trial Court may have thought. The suit came up for hearing on the 16th of February, 1928, when it was adjourned to the 16th of March. At that time there was no order that the plaintiff was granted time to produce evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act necessary for the further progress of the suit. 16th March was a holiday and the case was taken up on 17th March. The plaintiff was not present on that date also and the suit ought to have been dismissed in the presence of the defendant under Order IX, Rule 8. Instead of doing so, the Court granted time to the defendant to produce his witnesses and on 19th March heard the witnesses of the defendant again in the absence of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is persistently absent, the Court cannot decide a suit on the merits. To p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »