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.
Kali Charan Vs. Mohammad Jamil and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All498; 122Ind.Cas.762
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point and the facts are these Two brothers, Matin Khan and Amin Khan, were declared insolvents during the lifetime of their father Wilayat Ali Khan. Wilayat Ali Khan made a gift of his property, the property in question, in favour of his daughter Amina Begam. We take it that 'Wilayat Khan did not want that his property should go to the creditors of his insolvent sons. Amina Begam died on 15th December 1926. Five days before her death, it is said, Amina Begam executed a will in favour of the respondents who are the sons of her two insolvent brothers Matin Khan and Amin Khan. On the death of Amina Begam the receiver proceeded to attach the property which belonged to Amina Begam under the gift of her father. The two legatees, the respondents, came forward with an objection to the attachment. They said that they alone were the owners of the property under the will of their aunt. The receiver opposed the petition, his contention being that the...
Abbas Ali Vs. Gulab Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All520; 121Ind.Cas.818
Sen, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal and arises out of an application for execution which was made in the year 1928.2. A compromise decree was obtained by the plaintiff-respondent in a suit for sale on a mortgage on 29th June 1923. The decree was passed in plaintiff's favour for Rs. 5,000 and the decree provided that the amount was to be paid by the judgment-debtor in easy instalments within 15 months of the date of the decree. Upon the expiry of the period of 15 months the decree-holder applied for a final decree to be passed in his favour. Notice of this application was duly served upon the judgment-debtor but he did not contest the application. The result was that a final decree was passed on 6th February 1926.3. The decree-holder applied for the execution of this final decree and it was resisted by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the decree was passed without jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity. It was contended that the original decree passed on 29th June 1923 ...
Muhammad Abdul Rahim Khan Vs. Musammat Izzat-un-nissa Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.550
1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for account. The 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.2. In the present appeal which relates only to costs it has been contended that the Court below ought not to have passed a decree for costs in plaintiff's favour in the preliminary decree but ought to have stayed its hands till at the time of the passing of the final decree. It is ako pointed out that the plaintiff had overvalued her claim.3. 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...
Tumman Singh and ors. Vs. Sheodarshan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All162; 122Ind.Cas.186
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C.2. It appears that the plaintiffs who are the appellants in this Court instituted a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent who has not appeared to contest this appeal. At one stage of the trial on 19th December 1927, in the Court of first instance the parties agreed by statements made before the Court by their counsel, that they would abide by the statement of one Bhagwant Singh who was, accordingly, ordered to be summoned and the 9th January 1928 was fixed for recording his statement. The next day i.e., 20th December 1927, the defendant made an application to the Court stating that he had learnt that Bhagwant Singh was related to the plaintiffs and he would not like to be bound by Bhagwant Singh's statement. On 9th January 1928 the learned Munsif held some enquiry and came to the conclusion that the allegation that Bhagwant Singh was related to the plaintiffs was...
RiazuddIn Vs. Mt. Phula Devi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All977
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. The facts are set forth in the order of reference. The main question to be decided is whether when an existing mahal contains portions of earlier mahals the wajibularzes of some of which contain entries recording a right of pre-emption and of the others do not, a right can be presumed to exist in respect of the whole of the existing mahal or in respect of only that portion of it which has come out of the original mahals containing such a record or whether a right has entirely ceased to exist.2. Unfortunately there is no section in the Act expressly referring to the case of union of mahals. The answer to the question referred has to be given on an examination of the language of the sections as they stand.3. Section 5 provides that a right of pre-emption shall be deemed to exist only in mahals in respect of which any wajibularz prepared prior to the Act records a custom, contract or declaration whatever its extent or in whatever form it may be expressed. Sub-Clause 6...
Mohammad Qamar Shah Khan Vs. Mohammad Salamat Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All112; 121Ind.Cas.546
1. This and the connected appeal No. 1092 of 1926 arise out of a suit for profits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of revenue for the years 1329 and 1330 Rs. The facts elicited from the record show a chapter of accidents. The trial Court dismissed the suit for profits on 29th December 1925. An appeal was preferred in the Court of the learned District Judge of Pilibhit, on 28th January 1926, and on that date the appeal was within time. The appeal was admitted and 2nd March 1926 was fixed for hearing. On that date, it appeared that; there had been no proper presentation of the appeal because Babu Uma Charan Lal, vakil, who signed the memorandum of appeal had not been duly appointed. The memorandum of appeal was accompanied by a vakalatnama but it did not contain the name of Babu Uma Charan Lal and there was no endorsement of acceptance by the vakil.2. It may be incidently noticed that the name of no other vakil was mentioned in the vakalatnama; and it is patently clear ...
Moti Lal and ors. Vs. Nandan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All122; 121Ind.Cas.545
1. The plaintiff who is one of the respondents before us instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of Rs. 150 principal amount and some interest on certain allegations which briefly come to this that the defendants were liable to make good the money to him (the plaintiff) as the heir of one Parsotam by virtue of certain agreements. The defence, inter alia, was that the suit was not cognizable by the Court at Muttra.2. The learned Munsif who heard the case accepted the plea of the defendants and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff's pleader for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff thereupon filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Muttra. That learned Judge held that the suit was cognizable by the Munsif of Muttra and by an order which is complained of dated 17th April 1928, reversed the order of the Munsif.3. The first point that arises for decision is whether an appeal would lie from the order of the learned Subordina...
Dharamdeo Rai Vs. Jwala Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All188
1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Additional Judge of Ballia reversing that of a Munsiff of that district and dismissing the appellant's application for execution of his decree on the grounds (1) that it was barred by limitation, and (2) that it was made by one only of two decree-holders without certain formalities being observed. The appellant challenges the correctness of the view taken by the lower appellate Court on both the grounds.2. The circumstances leading to the application in question may be briefly stated. A decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., was passed on 29th May 1920 in favour of Dharamdeo Rai, the appellant, and Chhatarsal Rai against Raj Ballabh Sahai for a sum of Rs. 1,074-4-0. The first application for execution was made on 29th May 1921: but it was dismissed for want of prosecution after a protracted proceeding lasting for several months. The lower appellate Court has discussed the circumstances which led it to believe that:that application w...
Gokul Prasad Vs. Sheikh Muzaffar Mian
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.551
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal and arises under the following circumstances. The decree-holder, one Gokul Prasad, got certain properties of the judgment-debtor attached in execution of his decree. The judgment-debtor objected to the attachment on certain grounds. 31st of March, 1923, Saturday Was fixed for the hearing of the objection. The case was not taken up that day and the decree-holder, having waited till 5 o'clock in the afternoon went away. Up to 5 o'clock he had no information when his case was likely to be taken up. The next Court day was 2nd of April, 1928, being a Monday. On that day, the case was called on. The decree-holder's Pleader stated that his client was not there and he asked for an adjournment. The Court refused to grant an adjournment and thereupon the Pleader retired. The judgment-debtor's objections were heard ex parte and were allowed on 12th April, 1928. The decree-holder asked the Court to set aside the ex parte order passed on the 2nd of April, 1928, a...
Man Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Lal Alias Bhuria and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.819
1. Admittedly a mortgage-decree was obtained by some of the plaintiffs on the allegation that they were members of a joint Hindu family, and the other members were impleaded as pro forma defendants. In execution of that mortgage-decree the mortgaged property was purchased by the plaintiffs in lieu of the decretal amount. Within twelve years of that date the heirs of the pro forma defendants, who were then described as members of the joint Hindu family, instituted the present suit to recover their share of the property. The suit was dismissed by the District Judge but has been decreed by a learned Judge of this Court who has come to the conclusion that the defendants cannot be allowed to go back upon their former admission. It seems to us that when the property was purchased in lieu of the joint decretal amount it was for the benefit of the then plaintiffs and the pro forma defendants. The property must be deemed to have been purchased on behalf of all the joint decree-holders. The pres...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »