Allahabad Court November 1929 Judgments
Balbhaddar Vs. Balla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All387a
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Ghatak has argued this appeal with considerable skill, but I am afraid that the authority is against him. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a certain mortgage executed by his judgment-debtor Balla in favour of Ram Ghulam was fictitious, ostensible, invalid and ineffectual according to law; that Balla had no right to transfer the property, and that Ram Ghulam had no right to accept the transfer. The plaintiff Balbhaddar sued Balla in the Court of Small Causes at Cawnpore on a simple money bond and at the same time applied under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P.C., for an injunction to prevent him from transferring his house. Notices were issued and both the application for injunction and the suit came up for hearing on the same date. The injunction was granted and the suit decreed. Both happened on the same day, 18th August 1926, and next day on 19th August Balla made the transfer to Ram Ghulam which is brought into question in this suit. It was argued in the suit that ...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Singh and Co. Vs. Sircar and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All392
Boys, J.1. The plaintiff-appellants are M.B. Singh and Co., colliery proprietors, and it is admitted that they supplied coal to the defendants, Sircar and Co., owing to the fact that the plaintiffs were abolishing their agency in Cawnpore, an arrangement was come to by which the plaintiffs were to supply some of the coal to the Pioneer Sugar Mills Co., at Unao. The Pioneer Sugar Mills went into bankruptcy and a question of accounts and balance due arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants. No mention would have been necessary of the share of the Pioneer Sugar Mills in the transactions at all, but for 'the fact that the lower appellate Court seems to have misconceived some of the facts relating to three cheques, which were exhibits, a misconception to which we shall refer later. 2. A finding of fact is that the plaintiff company supplied coal at some date prior to 15th April 1922. The suit on a balance of account was filed on 6th April 1925. Prima facie, therefore, the claim was b...
Tag this Judgment!Digambar Singh Vs. Birendra Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All313a
1. These five connected appeals arise out of suits for profits. The first group of suits relating to appeals 795, 681 and 796, were decreed against the principal contesting defendant, Digambar Singh, under Section 165 as a co-sharer. The other two suits relating to appeals 793 and 794 were decreed against the same defendant as a lambardar, under Section 164, Tenancy Act of 1901.2. One ground of appeal is common in all the cases. It is argued that the plaintiff is a member of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and the defendants and that under the rule of Hindu Law a member of a Hindu joint family cannot; sue the manager for his share of profits. It has been held by the civil Court in a partition suit, which was decided after the decision of the appeal by the Court below, that the parties are members of a joint family. We need not consider the effect of this decision on this point since in our opinion it is immaterial on the point at issue. The rule of Hindu Law cannot be contes...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bhagwan Dei Vs. Shib Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All341
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right in the property detailed in the plaint. The pedigree is printed at p. 22, and shows that Laoti Ram had two sons, Nahar Singh and Saheb Singh. The plaintiff Shib Singh is the son of Saheb Singh. Nahar Singh's widow was Mt. Chaoni, and he left a son Chait Ram. Chait Ram died leaving Bahu Lal as his son. He left a widow Mt. Bhagwan Dei, the defendant appellant.2. The plaintiff's case briefly stated was that Babu Lal and Shib Singh were members of a joint Hindu family when Babu Lal died, and that the names of Mt. Chaoni and Mt. Bhagwan Dei were entered in the revenue papers against the share of Babu Lal for their consolation and to secure payment of their maintenance allowance, but that the plaintiff himself remained in actual possession of the property. The plaintiff complained against the action of the widow in granting a lease, but he did not claim any specific relief with regard...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bhagwan Dei Vs. Shib Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.345
Shah Muhammad Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's right in the property detailed in the plaint. The pedigree is printed at page 22, and shows that Laoti Ram had two sons, Nahar Singh and Saheb Singh. The plaintiff Shib Singh is the son of Saheb Singb. Nahar Singh's widow was Musammat Chaoni, and he left a son Chait Ram. Chait Ram died leaving Babu Lal as his son. He left a widow Musammat Bhagwan Dei, the defendant-appellant.2. The plaintiff's case briefly stated was that Babu Lal and Shib Singh were members of a joint Hindu family when Babu Lal died, and that the names of Musammat Chaoni and Musammat Bhagwan Dei were entered in the revenue papers against the share of Babu Lal for their consolation and to secure payment of their maintenance allowance, but that the plaintiff himself remained in actual possession of the property. The plaintiff complained against the action of the widow in granting a lease, but he did not c...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Karan Singh Vs. Shiv Harakh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All95
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs brought the usual case for possession of property transferred by their father on the allegation that the transfer was made without legal necessity. The two subordinate Courts held that out of the consideration of Rs. 300, there was legal necessity for Rs. 100 which was paid towards an antecedent debt, that Rs. 50 was not paid and that no legal necessity was proved for the sum of Rs. 150. The argument here was that as to Rs. 150, the lower appellate Court had accepted the position of the defendant appellant that that sum was borrowed for the purchase of bullocks and that the Court held this sum to be paid without legal necessity, simply because there was no recital in the sale-deed. Such, however, is not the position. The lower appellate Court said that the bullocks were purchased prior to the sale and there was no proof that the money was borrowed for the purchase of those bullocks. The finding, therefore, of the lower appellate Court is not vitiated by wrong...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Vs. Ganpat Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All105
Dalal, J.1. The defendant-tenant of an ex-proprietary holding desires to escape payment of rent on two grounds: First, that he did enter into an agreement for payment of the rent to his usufructuary mortgagee Mithan Lal, but that Mithan Lal's transferee who redeemed the mortgage was not entitled to take advantage of that agreement. Secondly, that the agreement itself was not enforceable because the rent was not fixed under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, and no rent fixed otherwise than by the revenue authority may be recovered from an ex-proprietary tenant.2. There is no force in the first ground of objection. The defendant Nathu sold his equity of redemption to the plaintiff Ganpat Singh. Thereupon Ganpat Singh redeemed a mortgage of 11 bighas 6 biswas out of 17 bighas 6 biswas from Mithan Lal. He is, therefore, the successors-in-interest of Mithan Lal and can enforce an agreement entered into between Mithan Lal and Nathu. Mithan Lal has no objection to the portion of the rent proporti...
Tag this Judgment!Sisram and ors. Vs. Ram Chander Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All104
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad. It arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 199-10-0 on foot of a bond executed by Niadar Singh defendant 4, Indar Singh defendant 5 and Imrat Singh, father of defendants 1 to 3. It was contested op a variety of grounds one of which was that Niadar Singh defendant 4 was an undischarged insolvent and leave of the insolvency Court not having been obtained for the institution of the suit the same was not maintainable against him. This ground prevailed in the Court of first instance, but the lower appellate Court has overruled it and decreed the suit against all the defendants. The present application for revision has been filed by the defendants.2. The only question argued before me is whether, in the absence of leave of the insolvency Court, the lower appellate Court was justified in passing a decree against the undischarged insolven...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Singh Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All97
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order dated 5th November 1928, passed by the District Judge of Agra, returning the memorandum of appeal filed before him for presentation to the proper Court, The plaintiff-applicant brought a suit for arrears of revenue amounting to Rs. 224-2-9 before an Assistant Collector of the First Class, who decreed it in full. The defendant appealed to the District Judge impugning the decree passed by the Court of first instance to the extent of Rs. 146-4-0. It will thus appear that the subject matter of the original suit exceeded Rs. 200 but the subject matter of the appeal was below Rs. 200. The learned District Judge held that, in so far as the valuation of the appeal before him was below Rs. 200, no appeal lay on the civil side. The view has reference to the provisions of Section 242, Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926. The present application for revision has been filed by the defendant (appellant before the learned District Judge) impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Jadunandan Chaube and anr. Vs. Surajdeo NaraIn Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All223
1. The only point that arises in this second appeal is whether the Courts before were correct in holding that the mortgage deed in suit was not attested in the manner required by law.2. The mortgage deed bears the signature of the executor and in the margin of the deed there are the names of two persons purporting to be witnessess since each name is preceded by the letter 'g' (gawah). There is a fourth name in the margin, namely, Thakur Prasad; but this name is not preceded by the letter 'g' but by the latter 'd' (dastkhat) showing that Thakur Prasad did not purport to sign as a witness of the deed. The evidence shows that Thakur Prasad was in fact the scribe of the deed.3. As regards the two signatures of the persons who purport to have signed as witnesses it has been found that one of them, namely Maheshar Ram did not sign his name himself and that there was no proof that he had authorised the scribe to sign for him as an attesting witness. For this reason the lower appellate Court h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »