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.
Radha Balabh Pathak Vs. Bhullo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All303
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order of remand. The facts are that the plaintiff sued for possession of certain property against four defendants, of whom Motilal, Chandra Bhan, and Lala Ram were three brothers, and Goswamini Rohini Debya, as the manager of a temple. The suit was decreed by the Munsiff and an appeal was brought by the She bait, defendant 4. In that appeal, inter alia, the defendant 4 urged that the idol, the Thakurji, was a necessary party to the suit. The lower appellate Court passed an order on 7th January 1927 as follows:The plaintiff has put in an application to make the Thakurji a party in the case and the Thakurji has now been brought on the record. Inasmuch as all the issues will have to be tried on the evidence adduced on behalf of the Thakurji, this decision of the learned Munsiff cannot stand. It is accordingly set aside and the suit is remanded for retrial, The parties shall have a right to produce fresh evidence.2. The plaintiff m...
Raghunath Tewari Vs. Buddhu Ram Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All315
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1(Raghunath) arising out of a suit brought by his brother, Buddhu Ram (plaintiff-respondent), for joint possession of 460 acres of land in a village in Jaunpur district. Defendants 2 and 3 are the other two brothers of the plaintiff and defendant 1. The land in dispute was leased by its proprietors, Raja Amarpal Singh and Sheikh Kifayatullah by an instrument, dated 21st January 1925, ostensibly to Raghunath defendant 1 and one Sat Narain, a stranger to the family, on receipt of a premium of Rs. 2,000 at an annual rent of Rs. 24-8-0. The lease confers heritable and transferable rights on the lessees in express terms (naslan bad naslan wa batalan bad batalan qabili warasat we qabili intiqal), like those of a fixed rate tenant.2. The plaintiff alleged that defendant 1 was not the lessee in his individual capacity but that it was the joint family consisting of all the four brothers that had taken the lease in the name of defendant 1 for the ...
Sitla Bux Chaube and ors. Vs. Gopal Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All321
Dalal, J.1. The Judge of the lower appellate Court has passed a most careless decree. The suit was in the alternative for declaratory decree as regards so much of present plots Nos. 185 and 202 as may correspond with old plots Nos.286 and 288, and, in the alternative, for possession. The lower appellate Court casually passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff's claim but made no mention whether a declaratory decree was granted or one for possession. Further, at the very commencement of his judgment he wrote that no portion of old plot No. 286 was included in the present plots Nos. 185 and 202, and yet this matter was not cleared up in the lower appellate Court's decree. Matters are left in such a way as to lead to further litigation. As usually happens, the plaintiff litigant on paying the court-fee believed that after that it was the business of the Court to find out what his rights were. The prayer was entirely indefinite and the trial Court ought to have returned the plaint for a s...
Pancham Singh and anr. Vs. Balak Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All374
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit for possession of certain property.2. At p. 14 of the paper book will be found the pedigree of the plaintiffs family. The present plaintiffs are relations of one Gulab Singh who died in or about the year 1886. Mt. Kenchan Koer, widow of Gulab Singh, obtained possession of zamindari property and the property now in suit, and it is found by the Courts below that she obtained possession in lieu of maintenance. She transferred some of her property, but as regards the property in suit she, by an application to the revenue Courts, got the name of her cousins entered in the revenue papers. The defendants are transferees from the cousins of Mt. Kenchan Koer.3. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiffs' claim. The lower appellate Court dismissed a portion of the claim on the ground that the transferees were protected under Section 41, T.P. Act.4. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal before us. The learned Judge found that 'the perso...
Chotey Lal Vs. Mt. Mohanian and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All375
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff applicant brought the suit out of which this revision has arisen for recovery of Rs. 182-8-0 on foot of a bond, dated 9th June 1922, executed by the defendant respondents. The principal amount alleged to have been advanced under it was Rs. 127-8-0. Remaining sum represents the interest.2. The defence was that the defendants borrowed Rs. 120 from the plaintiff and made over 18 bighas of their occupancy land to the plaintiff for five years for satisfaction of the loan evidenced by the bond in suit, which has been satisfied in full.3. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes whose decree is sought to be revised, has held that Rs. 127-8-0 was advanced, as alleged by the plaintiff, that 18 bighas tenancy land was made over by the defendants to the plaintiff's father for five years and that the profits derived from the occupancy land were just sufficient to pay the interest. He held accordingly that the entire principal Rs. 127-8-0 was due. In his view t...
(Babu) Raj NaraIn Rao and anr. Vs. Lala Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All467
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money based on a statement of account dated 17th June 1922, in the handwriting of the defendant. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the defendant approached the plaintiffs in 1927 and requested him to advance him money in order to run his business, on the understanding that interest at the rate of 1 per cent per mensem would be paid continually with yearly rests, and that if the defendant failed to pay the annual interest the same would be added to the principal and interest charged on the whole amount at the said rate; that the defendant used to borrow money from 1907 to 1921 and made entries in his account books, and having squared the account he used to credit year after year the amount of interest in the account of the plaintiffs, that a balance was struck on 17th June 1921, and finally on 17th June 1922, the defendant copied out the entire account from his account-books and entrusted the same t...
Thakari Mallah Vs. Ram Tahal Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1931All57
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a revision arising out of a Small Cause Court suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent on foot of a pro-note. In defence the execution of the pro-note and receipt of consideration were denied. Circumstances under which the defendant signed a blank paper were alleged. The learned Judge of the Court below overruled the defence and held the execution of the pro-note and the passing of consideration duly proved. Accordingly he decreed the suit.2. The present revision has been filed mainly on the ground that the adhesive stamp on the pro-note in suit was not concelled in the manner required by Section 12, Stamp Act, and for that reason the pro-note could not be enforced being inadmissible in evidence. This objection was not taken before the trial Court. On the merits I do not think it has any substance. The adhesive stamp on the pro-note in question bears the signature of the executant in the handwriting of the scribe of the pro-note. The executant is illiterate. S...
Mt. Rani Kunwar Vs. Mahbub Baksh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All252
1. This is a first appeal by Mt. Rani Kunwar defendant from an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court. The suit was brought by Mahbub Baksh plaintiff, and he claimed Rs. 2,762-15-0 made up of Rs. 1,100,the consideration of two sale deeds by the defendant to him and the costs of litigation between the plaintiff and the zamindar Ganga Prasad. The two sale-deeds were executed by the defendant on 23rd February 1924 and 31st March 1924 in favour of the plaintiff. Each sale-deed purported to be of a plot of land 10 biswas in area, old number 1473, for the purpose of building a house. In the first sale-deed boundaries were given and in the second sale deed no boundaries were given. The plaintiff began to build his house and objections were made by Ganga Prasad, zamindar, and Ganga Prasad brought a suit against the plaintiff and a compromise was entered into with him by which the plaintiff admitted that the land on which he built his house was not the land which he purchased from ...
Konmal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All215
Dalal, J.1. The plea is raised for a fresh trial, because it is alleged that after the trial Court altered the conviction from Section 323 to Section 325, I.P.C., the applicants were not allowed to recall or resummon prosecution and defence witnesses and examine them with reference to the alteration of the charge and were further not allowed to call more witnesses whom the Court may think material. The reader has gone through the record and has not discovered any application of the applicants to be permitted to call witnesses. There is no affidavit by any legal practitioner appearing in the trial Court that an oral request was made to recall previous witnesses or to summon new ones. There has, therefore, been in my opinion no breach of the provisions of Section 231. It would be instructive to compare those provisions with the provisions of Section 256 where duty is laid on the Court to ask the accused to state at a particular period of the trial whether he wishes to cross-examine any a...
Bindraban Vs. Durag Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All220
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption brought by Mt. Nannhi Bahu against the vendee Bindraban impleading the vendor Durag Singh. The suit, was decreed by the first Court and the decree was affirmedly the lower appellate Court on 24th February 1927. The pre-emption money was paid by the decree-holder, and under 0. 20, Rule 14(b) the title to the property accrued to her from the date of such payment. She however, died, and after her death a second appeal was filed in this Court on 20th May 1927, against the vendor Durag Singh who, it now appears, has succeeded to her estate.2. The main ground urged before us is that because the vendor has himself now become the legal representative of the pre-emptor he should be estopped from taking any benefit from the decree. In our opinion this contention has no force whatsoever. The pre-emption suit was decreed in favour of Mt. Nannhi Bahu, in whom the property became vested as soon as she deposited the pre-emption mon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »