Skip to content

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.

Nov 11 1929

Benares Bank Limited Vs. Pirya Das-pitam Chand and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-11-1929

Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.406

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 No. 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 the 28th of May, 1924, and another batch of five hundis on the 12th of June, 1324, each of the fifteen being for Rs. 1.,000, The same firm drew another hundi for the sum of Rs. 2,500 on 29th July, 1934. 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 Prased endorsed the hundi in favour of the Benares Bank Limited in the case of the fifteen hundis of Rs. 1,000 eac...


Nov 08 1929

Dip NaraIn Singh Vs. Nageshar Prasad and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-08-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All1; 122Ind.Cas.872

Sulaiman, J.1. The principal question of law which arises in this appeal is as to the legal effect of including non-transferable occupancy lands along with other properties, which are transferable, in a registered mortgage deed.2. There can be no doubt that there is a clear distinction between a contract which still remains to be performed and specific performance of which may be sought, and a conveyance by which title to property has actually passed. Cases of mere contract are governed by the provisions of the Contract Act. Cases of transfer of immovable property are governed by the Transfer of Property Act. A mere contract to mortgage or sale would not amount to an actual transfer of any interest in the immovable property (S. 54, T.P. Act), but a deed of sale or mortgage, if duly registered, would operate as a conveyance of such interest. Once a document transferring immovable property has been registered the transaction passes out of the domain of a mere contract into one of a conve...


Nov 08 1929

Nannu Mal Vs. Ram Charan Lal and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-08-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All485

Mukerji, J.1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance: There was an additional plaintiff in the person of Kundan Lal who was originally in the array of defendants but was made a co-plaintiff with Nannu Mal, because the mortgage deed stands in the name of Kundan Lal, while the real owner is Nannu Mal. It being agreed that Nannu Mal is the real mortgagee, Kundan Lal may be left out of account.2. The facts so far as this appeal is concerned are these. There were two mortgages. The prior one was in favour of the defendants Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai and the second one was in favour of Nannu Mal, although, as stated, the deed stood in the name of Kundan Lal. Ram Charan and Ganga Sahai brought a suit for recovery of their money on foot of their mortgage, but did not implead either Nannu Mal or Kundan Lal as a party to the suit. The result was that after the usual decree for sale, the property was sold in execution of the decree and was purchased by the mortga...


Nov 08 1929

Subhan Mochi and anr. Vs. Babu Ram Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-08-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All121a

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and the history of the litigation is as follows: In the year 1911 some quarrels broke out in Rasra, a Tahsil in the district of Ballia, between Hindus and Mohammedans over the slaughter of cows. It is said that both communities from that time onwards were not unwilling to annoy the other, and it is also said that in 1920 a serious quarrel arose over an innovation on 4th day of Moharram, the innovation being a procession called the 'dul dul' procession, which never previously had been held there. The Sub-Divisional Officer intervened with the hope of getting the relations of the Hindu and Mohammedan communities on a better footing and on 7th October 1920 an agreement was signed. The plaintiffs contended that this was not a representative agreement. The defendants contended that it was. Considerable difficulties are said to have arisen on each occasion of Moharram from 1920 until this present suit was instituted. Th...


Nov 07 1929

Chhedi Lal and ors. Vs. Punnu Lal and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-07-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All186; 122Ind.Cas.402

1. This appeal and the connected second appeal No. 1590 of 1926 arise out of the same suit. The suit was brought for accounts and recovery of some money as the share of the plaintiffs. There is a large number of defendants. Some of them, including Ram Narain, who support the plaintiffs' appeal, contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in the suit and these defendants also were entitled to a share of the profits after accounts had been taken. The suit was mainly contested by defendant 1 Punnu Lal.2. The facts which were alleged in the plaint are briefly these: In the year 1912, an association of more than 20 persons was formed with the object that a business should be started and with the gain of that business education should be imparted to the children of the members of the caste to which the members of the association belonged. The money was also to be spent on other charitable purposes. If, after the charitable purposes had been met, there remained any surplus, it was ...


Nov 06 1929

Emperor Vs. Kanver Sen and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-06-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All206

Sen, J.1. Kanver Sen, Ram Lal, Sat Narain, Gopal Krishna Consul, Kashi Ram Madan, Kishanchand and Beliram, who, with two others, are on their trial before a Magistrate of the First Class of Benares under Section 420, I.P.C. applied to this Court under Section 526(1), Criminal P.C. for the transfer of the case to some other criminal Court of equal jurisdiction on the ground that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in the Court where the case was pending.2. The learned Government Advocate was instruced by the Local Government to oppose the application. The applicants were represented by counsel. The parties were heard and the application was eventually dismissed on the ground that it was frivolous and vexatious.3. The learned Government Advocate moved this Court to exercise the power contained in the provision of Section 526(6-a), Criminal P.C. On behalf of the Crown, an affidavit was filed by Mohammad Fariduddin, which showed that the costs incurred by the Local Government in op...


Nov 05 1929

Onkar Prasad Vs. Dhani Ram and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Decided on: Nov-05-1929

Reported in: AIR1930All177; 122Ind.Cas.865

1. These connected appeals arise out of a suit for possession of a house brought by Onkar Prasad, appellant in Second Appeal No. 432 of 1926 and the contesting respondent in Second Appeal No. 523 of 1926. The suit was decreed for possession of one-third of the house in dispute by the Court of first instance whose decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court, the learned Additional District Judge of Agra.2. The house in dispute belonged to one Sukh Lal, who sold it on 17th February 1908 to Babu Ram. One Banwari Lal obtained, on 4th August 1908, a simple money decree against Sukh Lal, in execution of which he attached the house in question. Babu Ram aforesaid had in the meantime died, and his son Onkar Prasad objected to the attachment relying on the sale deed in favour of his deceased father. The objection was disallowed on the ground that the sale was not followed by possession and was a fictitious transaction. Thereupon a regular suit was instituted by Onkar Prasad for a decl...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial