Allahabad Court December 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.
Ajai Verma Vs. Baldeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All217
1. This appeal and the connected appeals Nos. 207 to 209 are against four orders by which the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur refused to restore four different appeals then pending before him, all of which he had dismissed on an earlier date, for default of the appearance of the appellant.2. An affidavit was filed before the learned District Judge by the general agent of the appellant, one Munawar Beg and it was to this effect. Munawar Beg attended the Court and was looking after the appeals. He had gone out to attend a call of nature and during his temporary absence the cases were called out and were dismissed for default. There is nothing to rebut this evidence before the learned Judge. The learned Judge says in his order that he waited between 10 to 15 minutes and nobody turned up. He also noted the fact that the applications for restoration were made a few days later and not on the very day the appeals were dismissed.3. We have looked into the order sheet and we have looked ...
Sukhram Puri Vs. Mohammad Ashfaq
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All291
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the landlord to resume a certain muafi land on the allegation that the grant was made for services which are no longer required by the proprietor. The services were the worship of a certain idol in a certain temple.2. The first Court dismissed the suit, the lower appellate Court decreed it and a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal.3. The decision of the case before us depends on a proper construction of the wajibularz which contains the terms of the grant. The wajibularz runs as follows:In this mahal 38 bighas 17 biswas are held by Gayapuri Goshain Chela of Bhagwanpuri for the purposes of the performance of puja of Mahadeoji. The muafidar will remain in possession of the land so long as he performs the worship. If he fails to perform the worship, the landlord will be entitled to hand over the land to somebody else; so that the puja may be performed.4. The question that arises, on a true construction of this docum...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. Lala Shib Charan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All479
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment brought by the plaintiff on the ground of denial of title by the defendants who ware alleged to be the plaintiff's tenants. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim. In order to appreciate the points which have been pressed before us in appeal it is necessary to give the previous history of the dispute between the parties.2. In 1911 the present plaintiff institued a suit for ejectment against these defendants on the ground that they were tenants at will liable to be ejected at the wish of the plaintiff. This suit was contested by the defendants, who pleaded that under an old contract they had taken land from the plaintiff's predecessor on an agreement to pay a fixed rent of annas 2 per month without any right in the landlord to eject them. The Court of first intance decreed the claim holding that the defendants had failed to prove their permanent rights. On appeal the District Judge reversed the decree,...
Bans Gopal Vs. Mewa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All461
Dalal, J.1. A decree was passed on 29th March 1922. There was an application for execution in September 1923. A payment was certified on 16th February 1924, to the effect that a sum of Rs. 70 was paid in December 1923. The present application is one of 20th October 1927.2. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that limitation should count from 16th February 1924, when the certificate of payment was filed and the period of eight months eighteen days between the adjudication of the judgment-debtor as an insolvent and the annulment of the adjudication should be deducted under the provisions of Section 78(2), Provl. Insol. Act. That Court has made a slip in regarding the certificate as an application. Under Article 182, the period of limitation runs from the date of the application, and a certificate of payment is not an application as held recently in a Full Bench ruling Joti Prasad v. Sri Chand A.I.R. 1929 All. 629(F.B.). The period of limitation must therefore run from Dec...
Shiam Sundar Lal Vs. Shib Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.402
1. This a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit on the basis of a mortgage-deed. The plaintiff was a minor and the suit was instituted by his mother acting as his next friend. After the issues had been framed, the 14th of April, 1926, was fixed for the filing of a list of witnesses, but on that date the suit was transferred to the Court of another Munsif, who fixed the 10th of May, 1926, for final decision. When the case was called on for hearing on that date an application signed by the next friend's mukhtar-i-am and countersigned by the plaintiff's Pleader was filed in the Court praying for an adjournment on the ground that the mukhtar-i-am bad been continuously ill for about a month and had not been able to summon the witnesses. The learned Munsif thought that this ground was a mere lame excuse and rejected the application. After that order that plaintiff's Pleader stated that he had no instructions to proceed with the case other than to file the aforesaid application for adjourn...
Nathan and ors. Vs. Harbans Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All254
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against the decree of a learned single Judge of this Court, awarding the plaintiffs possession of 29 bighas 1 biswa of land. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: The plaintiffs lessed 48 bighas 1 biswa of land to the defendants at an annual rent of Rs. 99 for the purpose of gathering thatching grass. This lease was admittedly a lease from year to year terminable by notice from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs gave notice and brought a suit against the defendants for ejectment in the revenue Courts and it was eventually held by the Board of Revenue that the revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. Accordingly, the plaintiffs after that adjudication issued a fresh notice to the defendant and brought a suit in the civil Court. The Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of want of jurisdiction.2. It is settled by rulings of this Court, of wh...
Bhaya Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All261
King, J.1. This is a reference for a decision whether a certain application filed by an advocate on behalf of a prisioner in jail is chargeable with a court-fee.2. The application in question was filed by an advocate on behalf of the prisoner on 12th November 1929, and purports to be from the prisoner himself. The application runs as follows:That my counsel will be absent from Allahabad between 14th and 21st November 1929, both days inclusive. It is prayed that the above mentioned case be not put up on the days list between the above mentioned dates.3. The learned advocate, who appears on behalf of the advocate who presented the petition, has argued that the application is exempted from liability to court-fee under Section 19(17), Court-fees Act, 1870. This clause runs as follows:Petition by a prisoner or other person in duress or under restraint of any Court or its officers.4. Undoubtedly the application in question is a petition on behalf of a prisoner, and the only question is wheth...
Jagannath Prasad Vs. Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All281
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has no force. The only point to be decided is whether the order of the Collector dated 4th November 1924 operated to remove the attachment which had been validly made by an order of the civil Court. It appears that a decree was obtained by the respondent Sheonarain against one Ram Lal who died joint with the appellant Jagannath. In the lifetime of Ram Lal, an attachment of his share of the property had been obtained by Sheonarain. After attachment the decree was sent, to the Collector for execution by the Munsiff. While the matter was still pending before the Collector, Ram Lal died. The Collector on 22nd October 1924, was informed by the Tahsildar that Ram Lal was dead and thereupon he directed that the decree-holder should be informed of the fact and the case should be taken on 4th November 1924. On that date the Collector passed the following order:The judgment debtor is dead. The decree-holder is absent. It is ordered that the case be removed from the list...
Dhanukdhari Singh and anr. Vs. Suresh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All363
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emtion. The only point raised relates to the question of consideration.2. In spite of the fact that the true interpretation of Section 17, Agra Pre-emption Act, was explained by Lindsay, J., in Abdul Ghafoor v. Kamaluddin : AIR1927All441 numerous second appeals are being filed only on the question of consideration, challenging the findings of the lower appellate Courts on the sole ground that the question has not been approached in the proper way. It cannot be denied that, in some cases, the language used by the Courts did indicate that the procedure laid down in Section 17 was not followed strictly. We, therefore, think it necessary to restate various stages in the enquiry as to the sale consideration which has been laid down by the legislature.3. In the first place, it is the duty of the Court to assume in favour of the vendee that the price mentioned in the sale deed and acknowledged by the vendor to have been...
Rahim Baksh and anr. Vs. Mt. Bachauna and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All445
Sulaiman, J.1. This a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption of a house situated in mohalla Shaikhpur in the city of Gorakpur. The plaintiffs are Mahomedans. The half shares of the same house were sold under two separate deeds by two separate vendors, one of whom was a Hindu and the other a Mahomedan. The plaintiffs alleged that there was a custom prevailing in this 'mohalla' under which there was a right of pre-emption. They further alleged that they had made the necessary demands under the Mahomedan Law and were entitled to pre-empt the house. It was obvious that their claim under the Mahomedan Law could not be entertained as regards the sale by the Hindu vendor.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed both of the suits. The lower appellate Court has distinctly found that no custom of pre-emption has been proved, and has also found that the demands under Mahomedan Law were defective, inasmuch as at the time of making the second demand there was no reference to the fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »