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.
Dhurjati Upadhiya Vs. Ram Bharos Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All109; 121Ind.Cas.701
1. The property is dispute originally belonged to Molai who in 1881 put his wife Mt. Nepali in possession and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It has been assumed all along that by adverse possession Mt. Nepali acquired an absolute proprietary interest in this property. The property therefore became her stridhan. In 1890 long after the death of her husband she attempted to make a gift of this property in favour of her daughter Mt. Lakhpati and got mutation of names effected in her favour. It is admitted that Mt. Lakhpati continued in adverse possession of this property from 1890 to 1899 when Mt. Nepali died. On the death of Mt. Nepali, her daughter Mt. Lakhpati was her sole heir. She continued in possession of this property as before till her death in 1920. Mt. Nepali had not executed a registered deed of gift in favour of Mt. Lakhpati as required by law.2. The plaintiff is an heir of Mt. Lakhpati's husband and claims the property on the ground that it was the stridhan of ...
Ram Charan Sahu Vs. Salik Ram Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All628; 121Ind.Cas.702; 87Ind.Cas.436
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge of Azamgarh setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of that district in a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that simple money decree dated 28th May 1919 passed by the District Judge of Gorakhpur in insolvency proceedings in favour of the Official Receiver and against the appellant was without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity and that the property of the plaintiff attached in execution of that decree was not liable to attachment and sale.2. It appears that the plaintiff appellant obtained assignment of two decrees from Ramanand and Naurangi who were subsequently declared insolvent by the District Judge of Gorakhpur. The plaintiff-appellant gave a discharge as regards those decrees either by receiving payments or otherwise relinquishing claim in respect of the judgment-debt. It is common ground that those decrees did...
Deo NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Phagu Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All541; 121Ind.Cas.817
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 22nd July 1867, executed by four brothers and their sons in favour of Ganga Prasad Singh, for Rs. 425. Bajrang, who was the father of the present plaintiffs and who on the findings was alive at the time, was not among the executants of the deed. But his elder brother Lachhman, his father Ram Sahai and three uncles as well as cousins joined in it.2. A suit was brought on the basis of this mortgage deed and a mortgage decree was obtained on 22nd August 1878, against the survivors of the executants. Admittedly Bajrang was not impleaded in this suit. Seven gandas share which belonged to this family was put up at auction on 18th November 1878, and was purchased by the mortgagee himself. Subsequently in 1885 the mortgagee transferred the share purchased by him at auction to the mother of the contesting defendants.3. The sons of Bajrang bring the suit for redemption on the ground that they are not affecte...
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All91
1. Mr. A who was enrolled as a pleader in the Allahabad District Court for the year 1923 has been practising since then in the Courts of the Benares State and now applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. His ground is that the Benares State Chief Court is almost equivalent to a High Court.2. The Bar Council has raised an objection on the ground that the Chief Court of the Benares State is not a High Court and Mr. A cannot be treated as having practised in any High Court and is therefore not entitled to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court.3. In our opinion the objection raised is sound. Under Bar Council Rule 1 an applicant must either have practised in one or more of the Courts subordinate to this High Court for a period of not less than one year or undergone training in the chambers of a senior member whose name appears on a list approved by this High Court or he must be an advocate of any other 'High Court' of not less than two years standing. It is quite c...
inayat Beg and anr. Vs. Umrao Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All121
1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to issue an injunction. The respondent had obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri which had been transferred to Agra for purposes of execution. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra the plaintiff-appellants filed a declaratory suit with a view to avoid the decree previously obtained by the defendant. They applied to the Court at Agra for an injunction to be issued to the defendant restraining him from taking out sale proceedings, and also for an injunction to be issued to the Execution Department directing the amin to postpone the sale. The application did not specifically mention the particular rule under which it was made, but as the prayer was for an injunction it was assumed in the Court below that the application was under Order 39, Civil P.C.R. 1 of that order had been amended by that time and injunction could not be issued by the Court. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge on this point...
Mt. RukmIn Kuer Vs. Mt. Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All126
1. This is an application for civil revision under Section 115, Civil P. C, and has been made by the plaintiff in the action under the following circumstances: A suit for partition having been instituted a preliminary decree was passed upon a compromise. This was followed by a final decree. A civil Court amin was deputed to make a partition of the house property. He carried out the order, prepared lots and assigned one portion of the house to the plaintiff and another portion to the defendant. An application was presented by Mt. Ram Pyari defendant in the Court of the Munsif, West Allahabad, on 8th April 1927 under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., in which she asked for a review of judgment inter alia on the ground that after the passing of the preliminary decree:Defendant 1 or her pleader or defendant 2, her son, was not at all given any information of the preparation of the decree absolute, nor did the Amin send any notice regarding measurement. Neither any information of the receipt of...
Mirza Inayat Beg and anr. Vs. Mirza Umrao Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.182
1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to issue an injunction, The respondent had obtained a decree from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri which had been transferred to Agra for purposes of execution. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra the plaintiff-appellant filed a declaratory suit with a view to avoid the decree previously obtained by the defendant. They applied to the Court at Agra for an injunction to be issued to the defendant restraining him from taking out sale proceedings, and also for an injunction to be issued to the Execution Department directing the Amin to postpone the sale. The application did not specifically mention the particular rule under which it was made, but as the prayer was for an injunction it was assumed in the Court below that the application was under Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. Rule 1 of that Order had been amended by that time and injunction could not be issued by the Court. The view taken by the learned Subordina...
Musammat RukmIn Kuer Vs. Musammat Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.184
1. This is an application for civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has been made by the plaintiff in the action under the following circumstances: A suit for partition having been instituted, a preliminary decree was passed upon a compromise. This was followed by a final decree. A Civil Court Amin was deputed to make a partition of the house property. He carried out the order, prepared lots and assigned one portion of the house to the plaintiff and another portion; to the defendant. An application was presented by Musammat Ram, Piari defendant in the Court of the Munsif, West Allahabad, On the 8th of April, 1927 under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which she asked for a review of judgment, inter alia, on the ground that after the passing of the preliminary decree 'the defendant No. 1 or her Pleader or defendant No. 2, her goo, was not at all given any information of like preparation of the decree absolute, nor did the Amin send any ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›