Allahabad Court November 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.
Sukhdeo Rai and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All387
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion the lower appellate Court ought to have gone further and made inquiry whether the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in a suit for possession. The plaintiffs sued for the rectification of a sale dead alleging that by mistake instead of a certain area a lesser area was entered in the sale deed. The lower appellate Court held that the suit for rectification was time barred under Article 96, Lim. Act. I agree with that finding. There was, however, a prayer (c) for possession of the property which was lefts out from being altered in the sale deed through a clerical mistake. As pointed out by Iqbal Ahmad,J. in Kesho Singh v. Roopan A.I.R. 1927, All. 355 a mistake may be proved under Section 92, Prov. (1), Evidence Act. The plaintiffs have come to recover possession within twelve years of the transfer, so their suit for possession is not time barred. What they mean in effect is that for instance, '1' is a mistake for 2', and that in consequence they should be given...
Sukh Lal Vs. Kanjman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All98
1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff Sukhlal whose suit for enforcement of a simple mortgage bond has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The facts are that on 22nd December 1909 Patti Ram, the father of defendants 1 to 3 executed a simple mortgage bond for Rs. 400 in favour of Sukhlal and his brother Chedalal mortgagees. Sukhlal alone brought the suit and joined his brother Chedalal as defendant 4. The contesting defendants 1 to 3 pleaded that on 21st March 1917 their father Pattiram discharged the whole mortgage debt on the bond of 1909 by executing a new bond in favour of Chedalal alone for Rs. 900 out of which Rs. 500 went to satisfy the mortgage debt of 1909 and Rs. 400 was a new loan from Chedalal to Pattiram. It was also pleaded that in the original mortgage of 1909 Sukhlal's name was merely farzi and Sukhlal had not advanced any of the mortgage consideration. It has been found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that the finding of the Munsif was correct, that ...
Shahzad Singh Vs. Ram Ugrah Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All211a
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Shahzad Singh applied for the execution of a decree for possession granted by the Court of first appeal. His suit was to recover possession of 20 bigas of land which had been leased to him by Mathura Singh, Ram Ugrah Singh, Raja Ram Singh, Baldeo Singh and Balbhadar Singh. From the decree which has been put in execution the five defendant-lessors had appealed to this Court and the appeal had been decreed with the result that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. It so happened, however, that when the decree was passed Mathura Singh had died beyond the period of limitation previously. The decree-holder's contention is that Mathura Singh having died the entire appeal abated and a decree passed after automatic, abatement was a nullity. The opinion of the Calcutta High Court was quoted that the decree would be a nullity, because if it were not so held there would be two conflicting decrees of two Courts of competent jurisdiction, one in favour of the plaintiff and o...
Kamlapat Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All214
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Kamlapat, owner of a factory in Cawnpore, has been convicted under Section 41(a), Factories Act. The charge is divided into two heads with respect to four workmen Puran, Gopal Singh, Badri and Bhagwat. The first charge is under Section 26, Factories Act, that the manager employed these four men during hours beyond the time fixed for the employment of each person employed in the factory. The second charge is that three of the men Puran, Gopal Singh and Badri were employed in the same factory for more than eleven hours on the particular day about which a report was made by the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers.2. The argument here was that these four men were piece workers and not regularly employed and that therefore the provisions of the Act did not apply to them. No ruling was quoted on this subject, so that matter has to be decided on the ordinary interpretation of words in Section 2(2)(d):A person who works in a factory, whether for wages or not, in cleaning o...
Murtaza Khan and ors. Vs. Ajit Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All458
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal in which a Bench of this Court remanded an issue for finding by the lower appellate Court as to whether a certain plot in dispute was 'land' as defined by the Agra Tenancy Act (2 of 1901) or not, and the finding of fact by the lower appellate Court is in the negative and is that the plot is a grove.2. The appeal is by the defendants The plaintiff sued for possession of this plot as a grove and for recovery of damages on account of the produce appropriated by the defendants. It has been found that the defendants were zamindars and in possession of the grove in question and that they sold their zamindari and the grove in dispute to the plaintiff. The case for the defendants was that the grove was their sir and that by the sale they acquired exproprietary rights in it. In the Court of first instance, that of the Munsiff, at the instance of the defendants, the Munsif passed an order under Section 202, Agra Tenancy Act (2 of 1901), requiring the defendan...
Shahzad Singh Vs. Babu Ram Ugrah Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.591
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Shabzad Singh applied for the execution of a decree for possession granted by the Court of first appeal, His suit was to recover possession of 20 bighas of land which had been leased to him by Mathura Singh, Ram Ugrah Singh, Raja Ram Singh, Baldeo Singh and Balbhadar Singh. From the decree which has been put in execution the five defendant-lessors had appealed to this Court and the appeal had been decreed with the result that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. It so happened, however, that when the decree was passed Mathura Singh had died beyond the period of limitation previously. The decree holder's contention is that Mathura Singh having died, the entire appeal abated and a decree passed after automatic abatement was a nullity. The opinion of the Calcutta High Court w3 quoted that the decree would be a nullity, because if it were not so held there would be two conflicting decrees of two Courts of competent jurisdiction, one in favour of the plaintiff and o...
Lachhmi Prasad Vs. Ganesh DIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All96
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendant Lachhmi Prasad for possession of an occupancy holding, on the ground that he was in possession of the holding as a trustee. The question of trust is of importance as the plaintiffs desired to escape the bar of limitation by reason of the provisions of Section 10, Lim. Act. Both the subordinate Courts have held that there was an express trust and that the property had vested in the defendant-trustee. They have quoted the defendant's own statement and further referred to the fact that the plaintiffs redeemed a mortgage of the occupancy holding. It was not explained on behalf of the defence how else except as a trustee from the plaintiffs' father he could have obtained possession of the occupancy holding. Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad argued that the trust was not for any specific purpose. The words 'for any specific purpose' merely indicate an express trust, i.e., a trust that is not constructive or one arising by implication of law: see Bhurabhai Jamnad...
Phool Kuari Vs. Bhagwan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All113
1. This appeal arises put of a suit to recover the money due on the basis of a hypothecation bond dated 10th November 1918.2. The suit was not contested by the mortgagors but defendant 9, Bhagwan Das, was impleaded as a subsequent mortgagee of a portion of the mortgaged property, namely, the property which is situated in mahal 'Yellow Bhagwan Dai' of mauza Fatehpur Asl.3. Bhagwan Das pleaded that he had priority in respect of his mortgages and it was found as a fact that he held two usufructuary mortgages of a date earlier than the date of the mortgage in suit. He contended that the plaintiff should not be allowed to bring the property to sale without paying him the mortgage money due on his prior mortgages.4. The trial Court granted to the plaintiff a decree for sale on condition that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 1,500 to the prior mortgagee Bhagwan Das, and ordered that in case of failure by the plaintiff to make such payment then the suit shall stand dismissed with costs.5. The decr...
Lallu Singh Vs. Ram Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All136
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Court. His suit was, in its form, one for redemption of a mortgage which his father, defendant 13 and one Raghunandan, who died as a member of the joint family with the two other persons mentioned, purported to mortgage certain occupancy lands on Asarh Sudi 6, 1293-F., corresponding to sometime in July 1886 for a sum of Rs. 299-15.-0. The plaintiff offered to redeem on payment of the aforesaid sum. The defence was that the plaintiff never made an offer to redeem, that there were two bonds by which certain moneys were tacked on the mortgage of 1886 and that to redeem the property the plaintiff was bound to pay not only the sum of Rs. 299-15-0 but also two additional sums amounting to Rs. 1,156-4-0. One of these bonds is dated 27th July 1893 and is for Rs. 170-0-0, carrying interest at 15 per cent per annum and the other was a bond dated 22nd July 1898 for Rs. 85-0-0 carrying interest at the same rate.2. The rejoinder of the plaintiff ...
Aminullah Jamati Vs. Makhdoom Beg
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All179; 122Ind.Cas.416
Dalal, J.1. The point in appeal is correct that a revenue Court cannot allow a set off. The authority of the revenue Court in such a matter is taken away by the provisions of Section 193(g), Tenancy Act 2 of 1901. The plaintiff sued for rent and the defendant desired to deduct his nankar allowance from the amount of rent. The two subordinate Courts have held that the true rent was arrived at by-the deduction of the nankar from the rent. This opinion is based on a misunderstanding of nankar right. The two rights are wholly different. A nankar is a certain allowance which an ex-proprietor receives from a person purchasing his property, while his tenancy rights do not depend on any exproprietary right. The defendant ought to bring a separate suit to recover his nankar right. The origin of the two rights of recovery being different, it cannot be said that the real rent is the amount entered in the khatauni minus the amount of nankar. Reference was made to a judgment of a settlement officer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »