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.
Kunwar Brij Raj Saran Singh Vs. Kunwar Basant Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.154
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. The plaintiffs claimed that there had been no adoption, and that even if the ceremony o...
Bisheshwar Upadhia Vs. Jagdeshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All231; 114Ind.Cas.186
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem a mortgage of 29th September 1902. They are successors-in-interest of Debi Prasad and Durga Prasad, who were proprietors at the time and mortgaged sir plots to Bisheshar and others. Under the Tenancy Act of 1901 prevailing at the time. Debi Prasad and Durga Prasad acquired the right to occupy the land as ex-proprietary tenants under Section 10 of that Act. They did not avail themselves of this privilege and the defendant remained in possession. In 1906 the proprietary title of the mortgagors was sold at auction and purchased by strangers who took action under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, for assessment of rent. This action was taken both against the plaintiffs and the defendant in 1908 and rent was assessed. In 1923 some of the plaintiffs sued for redemption but their suit was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 8, by reason of their absence and the presence of the defendant on the date of hearing. The present suit was subsequently brought in. 1926 ...
Ram Autar Kurmi and ors. Vs. Ghulam Dastgir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All250
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of a 6 annas 1 pie share out of 16 annas in certain immovable property mortgaged by Darshan Kurmi, ancestor of the defendants-appellants in favour of Sheikh Mohammad Jan, ancestor of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants 10 to 18. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 351 by way off mesne profits. Alternatively, they claimed a decree for recovery of Rs. 681-7-0 being their share in the mortgage money according to the acoount set out at the foot of the plaint. The mortgage in suit was a usufructuary mortgage made on 12th December 1888 to secure a sum of Rs. 898. The mortgagee died about the year 1904 leaving three sons, five daughters and two widows. Sheikh Ghulam Mohiuddin, a stepbrother of plaintiffs 1 to 3 managed the estate for himself and the other members of the family between the years 1904 and 1921. On 20th May 1919, Sheikh Ghulam Mohiuddin received the entire mortgage money from defendants 1 to 9 and released the proper...
Ram Autar Kurmi and ors. Vs. Khwaja Ghulam Dastgir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.646
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of a 6-annas 1-pie share out of 16 annas in certain immoveable property mortgaged by Darahan Kurmi, ancestor of the defendants-appellants in favour of Sheikh Mohammad Jan, ancestor of the plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants Nos. 10 to 18 The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 351 by way of mesne profits. Alternatively, they claimed a decree for recovery of Rs. 689-7 being their share in the mortgage-money according to the account set out at the foot of the plaint. The mortgage in suit was a usufructuary mortgage made on the 12th of December, 1888, to secure a sum of Rs. 898. The mortgagee died about the year 1804 leaving three sons, five daughters and two widows. Sheikh Ghulam Mohiuddin, a step-brother of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 managed the estate for himself and the other members of the family between the years 1904 and 1921. On the 20th of May, 1919, Sheikh Ghulam Mohiuddin received the entire mortgage money from the defendan...
Kalloo and anr. Vs. Niadar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All252
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a mortgage decree obtained by the defendants against the father of the plaintiffs was null and void as against the plaintiffs. The defendants obtained a preliminary decree against the plaintiffs' father alone without making the plaintiffs parties to the suit. After the passing of the preliminary decree, and before the final decree was passed, the plaintiffs' father died and the plaintiffs were substituted as legal representatives of their father. After the plaintiffs had been thus impleaded as legal representatives the final decree was passed ex parte. Subsequently the plaintiffs applied to set aside the ex-parte decree and upon its being set aside they raised objections to the preparation of the final decree. They objected that they were not legal representatives of their father, Ram Lall, and proceeded to attack the mortgage-decree on the ground that the mortgage was without consideration and without legal necessity.2. The Co...
Kalloo and anr. Vs. Niader Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.462
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that a mortgage-decree obtained by the defendants against the father of the plaintiffs was null and void as against the plaintiffs.2. The defendants obtained a preliminary decree against the plaintiffs' father alone without making the plaintiffs parties to the suit. After the passing of the preliminary decree, and before the final decree was passed, the plaintiffs' father died and the plaintiffs were substituted as legal representatives of their father, After the plaintiffs had been thus impleaded as legal representatives the final decree was passed ex parte Subsequently the plaintiffs applied to set aside the ex partedecree and upon its being set aside they raised objections to the preparation of the final decree. They objected that they were not legal representatives of their father, Ram Lal, and proceeded to attack the mortgage-decree on the ground that the mortgage was without consideration and without legal necessity. The Court...
Bhagwat and ors. Vs. Salamat Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All205; 114Ind.Cas.185
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs, minor members of a joint Hindu family sued for the setting aside of a sale-deed executed by the major members of the family. The suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge in a very careful judgment. He heard the evidence and was in a position to estimate the value of the oral evidence. The District Judge set aside the decree and decreed the plaintiffs' suit on condition of payment of nearly the entire sale consideration. Hence the plaintiffs have appealed. The learned Judge's procedure has been somewhat hasty. He did not notice that out of the vendees only two had appealed. It is not clear why the payment of the entire sale consideration should be made to two of the vendees only. The other vendees had submitted to the decree of the trial Court and no decree was passed by the lower appellate Court with reference to the defendants who did not appeal. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs have filed the second appeal against two of the defendants onl...
Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Gajendrapal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All243
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. It arises out of a suit for sale of property mortgaged under a mortgage-deed dated 3rd May 1912 executed by one Ganeshi Lal, defendant 1. in favour of Paras Ram, father, of the plaintiff-appellants for Rs. 900. There are three sets of defendants, namely Ganeshi Lal, defendant 1, first party, his sons, defendants 2 to. 5, second party, and defendants 6 to 13, subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property, third party. The respondent Gajendrapal Singh is one of the subsequent transferees. He was the only defendant to contest the suit. He did so on the ground that the mortgage by Ganeshi Lal in favour of the plaintiffs was invalid for want of consideration and also of legal necessity. The trial Court rejected this defence and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. Gajendrapal Singh respondent appealed. The District Judge of Bulandshahr came to a finding that the actual consideration paid for the mortgage was Rs. 550 but that even fo...
Haji Anwar Khan Vs. Mohammad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All105; 113Ind.Cas.819
Dalal, J.1. This reference to a full Bench raises the question of jurisdiction of the insolvency Court. The questions submitted to us for decision are;(1) Whether an insolvency Court can try a question of title raised on the basis of a transfer which took place more than two years prior to the adjudication, having regard to the provisions of Section 53, Insolvency Act?(2) Would it make any difference if the receiver alleges that no transfer had been intended from the very beginning and no title had passed, the transaction being a mere paper transaction and void?2. If the answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative the second question will not arise.3. Every Judge of this Court except one who had to consider the point has decided in favour of jurisdiction of the insolvency Court, that is, the first question has been answered by him in the affirmative. The present Section 4, Insolvency Act (No. 5 of 1920) is an addition to the previous insolvency statute law as laid down in Act No....
Gaje Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Uchhaba and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All223
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference by the Local Government, under Rule 17 of the Rules and Orders relating to Kumaun Division, made on the petition of Gaje Singh, and others who were plaintiffs in a suit brought by them to challenge the validity of a mortgage-deed detail 18th August 1925 executed by Mt. Uchabai, widow of Govind Singh in favour of Kalyan Singh and Tika Singh, in respect of property to which she had succeeded on the death of her husband, issuless, a few years before the date of the mortgage. The relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased husband of Mt. Uchabai will appear from the subjoined pedigree. Bhawan Singh Bhawan Singh _______________|_______________ | | | | Gaje Gobind Sarup Khim Singh, Singh. Singh, Singh Plff. 1 married Plff. 2 | (1) Mt. Uchabai | Deft. 1 | (2) Mt. Jhaupari | deceased _____________| _________________|____________ | |Mohan Singh, Diwan Singh, Deft. 4, Plff. 32. The suit as brought is simple. Plaintiffs claim to be the nearest reversione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »