Allahabad Court October 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.
Mohammad Shafi and ors. Vs. Mohammad Said and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All847; 122Ind.Cas.871
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Azamgarh in a suit for redemption of two mortgages. One Chetu Lonie usufructuarily mortgaged one anna zamindari share of village Cheontahi to Jaglal Singh on 23rd December 1867 for Rs. 999. A six pies share of the same village was also usufructuarily mortgaged by Chetu aforesaid and his sister-in-law Mt. Jhuri to the same party on 24th August 1868 for Rs. 500. In 1873 strangley enough Jaglal Singh's name was recorded in the revenue papers as owner, On 24th October 1893 Jehli and Jageshar, heir3 of the original mortgagors, sold the equity of redemption to one Bhawani Prasad, defendant 7. On 15th October 1902 Jaglal Singh made a sub-mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. In 1904 Bhawani applied for the correction of the revenue papers and prayed that Jaglal Singh's name be recorded as mort gagee and not as owner. As a result, it was rejected, Bhawani Prasad being referred to a civil ...
G.i.P. Ry. Co. and ors. Vs. Jugul Kishore-mukat Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All132
1. This is an appeal by the railway companies from a decree in a suit brought to recover damages on account of the fall in the price of the goods as a result of an unreasonable delay in delivery. Bales of cotton under two separate consignments were despatched by the plaintiff from Khurja City for Cotton Depot at Bombay on 1st December 1923. One consignment reached Bombay in time and there is no complaint about it. The second consignment was to be sent to Bombay via Jumna Bridge (Agra). The consignment passed Jumna Bridge and reached Jhansi on 7th December 1923 but at that station owing to a mistake by one of the servants of the G.I.P. Ry. instead of being forwarded to Bombay it was sent to Collectorganj, Cawnpore. It remained there for a long time till the mistake was discovered and was ultimately sent to Bombay where it arrived in two lots, the bulk arriving in Bombay on 25th February 1924 and four bales arriving on 24th March 1924. The delivery was taken by the plaintiff of these bal...
Gyasiram Vs. Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All165; 122Ind.Cas.185
1. In this case four plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant to recover damages for malicious prosecution.2. The Munsif in the trial Court found that the plaintiffs had been prosecuted by the defendant and that the plaintiffs had been successful in their defence in that prosecution. He also found that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and was malicious. The only matter no had left to enquire into was the question of damages. In the plaintiffs' claim they set out special damages to the amount of Rs. 1,942. They did not claim any general damages. The Munsif on a careful examination of the evidence came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 664-15-0 could have been recovered by way of damages by the plaintiffs, provided they had spent that amount of money out of their own pockets. He found on clear evidence, however, that the expenses of the defence had been met by one Kundan Lal, the uncle of two of the plaintiffs, and that not one of the plaintiffs had h...
G.i.P. Railway Co. and ors. Vs. Firm Jugul Kishore Mukat Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.828
1. This is an appeal by the Railway Companies from a decree in a suit brought to recover damages on account of the fall in the price of the goods as a result of an unreasonable delay in delivery. Bales of cotton under two separate consignments were dispatched by the plaintiff from Khurja City for Cotton Depot at Bombay on the 1st of December, 1923. One consignment reached Bombay in time and there is no complaint about it. The second consignment was to be sent to Bombay via Jumna Bridge (Agra). The consignment passed Jumna Bridge and reached Jhansi on the 7th of December, 1923, but at that station owing to a mistake by one of the servants of the G.I.P. Railway instead of being forwarded to Bombay it was sent to Collect organ Cawnpore. It remained there for a long time till the mistake was' discovered and was ultimately sent to Bombay where it arrived ia two lots, the bulk arriving in Bombay on the 25th of February, 1924, and four bales arriving on the 24th of March, 1924. The delivery w...
Kanhai Ram Vs. Musammat Jai Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.187
1. This was a suit for a declaration of title to certain properties. The valuation put by the plaintiff on the plaint was Rs. 5,000. This made the suit cognizable by the Subordinate Judge in his ordinary jurisdiction. One of the defences set up was that having regard to the value of the property, the suit should have been heard by the Munsif. Although this objection was raised at an early stage no preliminary issue was fixed (as to which Court should hear the case) and no decision was come to. The parties produced their evidence on the merits of the case and after the whole case had been argued both on the preliminary point and on the merits, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the Value of the subject-matter of the suit was less than Rs. 5,000 and that the case should be heard by the Munsif. He, accordingly, directed that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the Court of the Munsif.2. Mr. Panna Lal on behalf of the plaintiff contends that the entire ...
Sheo Balak Ram Vs. Mathura Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All117; 122Ind.Cas.178
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The defendant acquired a specific plot of land No. 777 by virtue of a deed of a gift during the pendency of the suit. It is conceded that if by virtue of this acquisition he has become a cosharer in the mahal he is entitled to resist the claim. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit and held that the defendant has become a mere petty proprietor. They have noted that he has acquired only a specific plot 777 but have not gone into the further question whether he is entitled to any interest in the joint lands of the mahal or to take part in the administration of its affairs. The definition of a petty proprietor given in Section 4(7), Agra Tenancy Act makes it quite clear that the mere fact that a person is the proprietor of a specific plot of land does not make him a petty proprietor. It should further appear that he is not entitled to such an interest in the joint lands of the mahal or to take part in the administ...
Md. Abdul Rahim Vs. Mt. Izzatunnissa Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All72
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for account. This suit was resisted upon every ground which was possible to human ingenuity. The Court of first instance overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant and came to the conclusion that the defendant in his capacity as manager of the property belonging to the family was liable to render an account of his stewardship. A preliminary decree was accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant was saddled with her costs. In the present appeal which relates only to costs it has been contended that the Court below ought no to have passed a decree for costs in plaintiff's favour in the preliminary decree-but ought to have stayed its hands till the time of the passing of the final decree. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff had overvalued her claim.2. We are of opinion that the plaintiff as the successful party in the suit was entitled to a decree for costs and it makes no difference that the costs wer...
Mohammed Shafi and ors. Vs. Chedu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All100
1. The facts of the case are given in the judgment of the Court below and briefly are these: A suit in which there were several plaintiffs was dismissed on 14th July 1927. One of the plaintiffs applied to the first Court, namely, the Munsiff for the restoration of the suit after setting aside the order' of 14th July 1927 which we may mention, was an order under Order 17, Rule 3, Civil P.C. Two of the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the decree. While the appeal was pending, the application of one of the plaintiffs for restoration of the suit was heard and allowed, on 29th October 1927. The defendants thereupon came to this Court in revision. While the revision applications was still pending, a statement was made to the appellate Court that the Munsiff by his order dated 29th October 1927, had set aside the decree of 14th July 1927, against which the appeal was pending. As the decree was no longer subsisting: the appeal could not be maintained and it was dismissed. The High Court in e...
Jang Bahadur Vs. Bhagat Ram-sheo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All110; 122Ind.Cas.409
1. This a judgment-debtor's appeal arising under the following circumstances: The appellant, Jang Bahadur, held an usufructuary mortgage over a considerable property, the amount of the mortgage being over Rs. 35,000. The respondents, holding a simple money decree against the appellant, got the interest of the appellant as mortgagee attached and sold. The sale was effected for Rs 2,500 only and the respondents them selves made the purchase. The appellant applied for the setting aside of the sale on the ground of fraud. The application was not heard on the ground that Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C, had no application, inasmuch as the property sold was moveable property. The appellant challenges the correctness of this decision and the only question which we have to, answer in this appeal is whether the mortgagee's interest in a usufructuary mortgage is, immovable property within the meaning of Rule 89, Order 21, Civil P.C. 2. In our opinion the answer to the question can be found out, fr...
Shib Singh Vs. Jograj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All116; 121Ind.Cas.827
Young, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. In 1919, the plaintiff was serving a term of rigorous imprisonment in jail and he appointed the defendant as his mukhtar-i-am. The defendant acted accordingly, and collected moneys belonging to the plaintiff and also disbursed moneys for him. In 1926 the plaintiff was released from, jail and in August of that year the plaintiff dismissed the defendant from his agency, after having demanded, and failed to obtain, an account of the moneys due to him. In March 1927, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a specific sum of Rs. 587 and interest, as money had and received to the plaintiff's use. It was held in that action, on authority, that the plaintiff could not sue a general agent for one specific sum of money without asking for an account, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. The plaintiff then brought this suit for accounts and payment of the amount found due to him. This suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by both the lower Courts. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »