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.
Ram Partap Pandey Vs. Lalu Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All163
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him under the following circumstances:2. One Achhuta Nand executed a mortgage-deed in 1905 in favour of Bhagwant and. Bindeshri. Subsequently, on 29th June 1908, he executed another mortgage-deed in respect of the same property in favour of Asghar. The last named mortgagee brought suit No. 81 of 1917 on foot of his mortgage-deed for sale of the mortgaged property, impleading, among others, Bhagwant and Bindeshri the prior mortgagees. Copy of the plaint of that suit has not been produced. It appears from certain recitals in the judgment that these persons together with some others were described in the plaint as subsequent transferees. In the written statement which they filed they appear to have claimed certain priorities. No copy of the written statement has been produced either. The judgment, which is the only document besides the decree, throwing light on the pleadings of that case, makes vague references to the ple...
(Saheb) Dayal Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All166
1. These are two second appeals, which have been disposed of in a single judgment of the lower appellate Court. We will first deal with second appeal No. 1727 brought by Saheb Dayal Singh against Mahabir Singh and Ram Dhari Singh. This was a suit for specific performance brought by Saheb Dayal Singh, alleging that Abdul Bari and three other cosharers executed a written agreement dated 23rd December 1922, undertaking to sell to him their 0-6-10 share in mahal Mohammad Taqi of mauza Ahmadpur. It is found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that Abdul Bari was not a party to that agreement to sell. On second appeal an argument has been addressed to us against this finding of fact to the effect that the lower appellate Court was mistaken in its construction of the sale-deed dated 4th September 1923, which, it is alleged, would conclusively prove that Abdul Bari also agreed to the agreement to sell on 23rd December 1922. We do not consider that the passage in question necessarily bears t...
Saheb Dayal Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.740
1. These are two second appeals, which have been disposed of in a single judgment of the lower Appellate Court. We will first deal with second appeal No. 1727 brought by Saheb Dayal Singh against Mahabir Singh and Ram Dhari Singh. This was a suit for specific performance brought by Saheb Dayal Singh, alleging that Abdul Bari and three other co sharers executed a written agreement dated 23rd December, 1922, undertaking to sell to him their 0-6-10 share in Mahal Mohammad Taqi of Mouza Ahmadpur. It is found as a fact by the lower Appellate Court that Abdul Bari was not a party to that agreement to sell. On second appeal an argument has been addressed to us against this finding of fact to the effect that the lower Appellate Court wag mistaken in its construction of the sale-deed dated 4th of September, 1923, which, it is alleged, would conclusively prove that Abdul Bari also agreed to the agreement to seil on 23rd of December, 1922. We do not consider that the passage in question necessari...
Harnath Vs. Mt. Phool Koer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All125; 122Ind.Cas.893
1. The facts of this case briefly are these; The pedigree on p. 9 will show the relationship between certain persons whose names it would be necessary to mention. Khemai, it appears, was the last survivor of three brothers, Bhagirath, Girdhari and himself. Parbati was in possession of a l/3rd share of the family property as the widow of her husband, Bhagirath. Khemai brought a suit, being suit No. 30 of 1908, against Mt. Parbati to recover 2/3rds share from Parbati. The suit was decreed with respect to l/3rd only, it being held that Khemai was in possession of 1/3. The result was that Parbati was held to be entitled to 1/3 share and Khemai was held to be entitled to 2/3. Khemai obtained delivery of possession over the property decreed to him on 2nd August 1910. Khemai has died and it has been proved that the plaintiff-appellant, Harnath, is his sister's son and, therefore, heir, in the absence of any nearer relation. The suit of Harnath was for recovery of Khemai's entire property and ...
Mahmood Ali and ors. Vs. Chinki Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All128
1. This is a second appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 5 against the decree passed by the First Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore modifying the decree of the Court of first instance in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 637-7 being Rs. 471-6 principal and Rs. 166-1 interest at the rate of one per cent per mensem on foot of a promissory note executed by one Mir Wilayat Husain (defendant 7) under the following circumstances. Defendants 1 to 5 were minors on the date of the pronote. Except one who has since attained majority they are still minors. Mir Wajid Ali (defendant 6) was their certificated guardian. He is a very old man being aged 75, and probably for that reason left the affairs of the minors to be looked after by his son Mir Wilayat Husain, defendant 7. Default was made in payment of Government revenue in respect of the minor's property. Both the lower Courts have found that the Naib Tahsildar arrived to attach the property belonging to the minors for re...
Sheo Bandhan Singh and ors. Vs. Sahdeo Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All130; 122Ind.Cas.895
1. These second appeals are brought by the plaintiffs against decree of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs brought three suits on the allegation that the plaintiffs belonged to two branches of the family of Ajaib Singh and the defendant Pudai Singh now represented by his son Sahadeo Singh belonged to the third branch. The plaintiffs alleged that this family was joint up to the year 1322 F when there was a partition. The plaintiffs alleged that some property remained undivided in that partition, and accordingly they sued for partition of that undivided property. Further the plaintiffs alleged that some property allotted to them in the partition was in the possession of the defendant and some of these suits are brought on that basis. The defence mainly was that in 1308 F there had been a partition, and that the partition set up by the plaintiffs in 1322 F was untrue. On behalf of the plaintiffs certain chithas were produced which gave details of property allotted to the plaintiffs...
Benares Bank, Limited Vs. Priya Das Pitam Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All106
1. This appeal and the connected appeal No. 582 of 1926 have arisen out of two independent suits, but the parties in them are the same except for this that in the suit out of which the appeal 582 of 1926 has arisen, there was an additional defendant in the firm of Bahadur Mull Priya Das.2. The facts in the two cases being similar, they may be decided by the same judgment. The facts, briefly, are these. The firm of Ganesh Lal Har Bilas of Agra drew one batch of ten hundis on 28th May 1924, and another batch of five hundis on 12th June 1924 each of the fifteen being for Rs. 1,000. The same firm draw another hundi for the sum of Rs. 2,500 on 29th July 1928. In each of these 16 hundis, the drawees were the firm of Priya Das Pitam Chand of Delhi and the persons in whose favour the hundis were drawn were Jangi Lal Debi Prasad, a firm of Agra. Jangi Lal Debi Prasad endorsed the hundi in favour of the Benares Bank Limited in the case of the 15 hundis of Rs. 1,000 each and the Benares Bank sent...
Ghazanfar HusaIn Vs. Mt. Ahmadi Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All169
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Benares affirming the decision of the primary Court in a suit for proprietary possession of certain shares in immovable property and for mesne profits. The propertyin suit consists mostly of shares in zamindari property, houses and miscellaneous property situate in the District of Jaunpur.2. The property admittedly belonged to Mir Inayat Husain, who died on 6th January 1924, leaving a widow Mt. Ahmadi Bibi and two stepbrothers Ata Husain and Ghazanfar Husain.3. This action was commenced on 3rd April 1925, by Syed Ghazanfar Husain, his brother Ata Husain did not join in the suit and was impleaded as a defendant. The plaintiff claimed to recover a six-annas share in the estate of Syed Inayat Husain and founded his claim upon intestate succession under the Mahomedan Law.4. The plaintiff repudiated a wakfnama, dated 7th April 1922, alleged to have been executed by Syed Inayat Husain under which Mt. Ahmadi Bi...
Shyam Behari Mal Vs. Maha Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All180
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand and is connected with two other first appeals from order which are numbered as 184 of 1928 and 217 of 1928. These three appeals arise out of three suits for recovery of money based on promissory notes against the same set of defendants.2. In first appeal from order No. 183 of 1928, the suit was instituted by Shyam Behari Mal on 16th May 1927, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh for recovery of Rs. 3,958-8-0 principal and interest on a promissory note dated 20th March 1926, which had been executed by Ram Ghulam Mal defendant 1 in plaintiffs' favour. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant 1 and members of a joint family with him and the plaintiffs sought to fix the liability upon the sons upon the ground that the money was borrowed to meet a legal necessity. The other defendants were three idols of a Hindu temple namely Padam Nal, Sri Ramji, Lachhmanji and Jankiji. These were impleaded as defendant 1 was alleged to h...
Sheikh Ahmad HusaIn Vs. Hakim Syed Ibrar HusaIn and Lala Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-11-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.687
1. The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought by plaintiff respondent No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 2,180 principal and interest on foot of a usufructuary mortgage deed dated the 21st of February, 1929, executed by Abrar Husain, defendant No 1, for a sum of Rs. 2,500 in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that the mortgagor had executed a prior simple mortgage deed in favour of one Sethani Chander Kuer in respect of which a sum of Rs. 1,605 was due at the date of the second mortgage, The second mortgagee was accordingly directed to pay off the prior incumbrances, and out of the consideration of the second mortgage a sum equal to that amount was left with the second mortgagee for the purpose. Toe balance of Rs. 895 was paid in cash. The second mortgagee, the plaintiff, was entitled to possession in terms of the mortgage deed in his favour, but it is not disputed now that the mortgagor did not deliver possession to him. The second mortgagee did not pay off the prior mortgagee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »