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.
(Shri) Shivalinga Mahadeo Vs. Kumodini Debi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All224
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for ejectment of the defendant and for possession of a room and dalan, said to be in the occupation of the defendant. The house is alleged to be an endowed property dedicated to the idol, in whose name the present suit has been brought by the surviving trustee, Mt. Gangamani Debi. It was originally purchased in the name of Mts. Gangamani Debi and Kumudamani Debi the two wives of Chintamani Chakrabarty, The two ladies created the endowment and installed the plaintiff idol in part of the house. Mt. Kumudamoni has since died, leaving two sons. Tincauri Chakrabarty and Panchcauri Chakrabarty., Gangamani Debi, through whom the present suit has been brought in the name of the idol, is apparently on bad terms with her stepsons. Under the deed of endowment she is the sole surviving trustee after the death of Kumudamani, Debi. The defendant respondent has admittedly no interest in the house., The suit for ejec...
Ram Charan Vs. Mathura Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All255
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The suit was instituted more than one year after the registration of the deed of sale, and the only question that arises for consideration in appeal is one of limitation.2. The property sold consisted of a two pies undivided share out of a 4 pies share which constituted khewat No. 1 owned by Nathoo and Dasaiyan. Nathoo alone has sold his two pies share to the vendee. The interest sold is obviously a fractional undivided zamindari share. Snch an undivided share cannot be owned and possessed separately and is therefore not capable of physical possession within the meaning of Article 10, Lim. Act.3. This point is quite clear from the Full Bench case of Batul Begam v. Mansur Ali [1898] 20 All. 315 which was affirmed by their Lordships o.f the Privy Council by a judgment reported in Batul Begam v. Mansur Ali [1902] 24 All. 17. The same view has been followed in Umrao Beg v. Mukhtar Beg [1919] 17 A.L.J. 269. The learned ad...
Krishna Das and anr. Vs. Raja Ram Bhatt Lele and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All282
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by a creditor whose application for an order of adjudication of the opposite party as insolvent has been dismissed by the District Judge of Benares. The opposite party are a joint Hindu family consisting of three members Raja Ram Bhatt Lele, Govind Shastri and Gaja Nand Rao. The application was made mainly on the ground that an act of insolvency had occurred by the execution by the opposite party of a fictitious deed of mortgage in favour of a third party Rai Krishnaji for Rs. 35.000 nominally, on 31st August 1927. Within three months of that date this application was made on 28th November 1927. Therefore it would be open to the applicant to have the benefit of Section 54, Provl. Ins. Act, which applies to a transfer of property in favour of any creditor with a view to giving that creditor a preference over the other creditors.2. The case for the applicant is that this mortgage comes under Section 6(b) or (c) as a transfer of property or part of a propert...
Baij Nath Vs. Janki Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All318
Young, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming an injunction to restrain the defendant from opening an almirah in the wall between the two houses, and asking that another almirah already made should be closed, and further that certain beams which the defendant was placing or proposed to place on his side of the wall should not be allowed, and an injunction restraining him from so doing be decreed.2. It appears that the plaintiff has a house three storey high; the defendant has a house one storey high-both parties using the same wall in common. It has been decided by the lower appellate Court as a matter of fact that the wall between the two houses is held in common by both the parties. The defendant wished to add one storey more to his present house. That would make his house two storeys in height, with the plaintiff's house still a storey higher above the defendant's house. The lower appellate Court refused to grant an injuncti...
Mushtaq Ali Beg and anr. Vs. Jwala Shankar Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All372
Sulaiman, J.1. Second appeal No. 112 of 1927 and Second appeal No. 615 of 1927 are defendants' appeals arising out of two pre-emption suits in respect of the same sale deed dated 7th July 1925, relating to certain plots of resumed, lands in khewat Rai Naterpal Singh, Kasha Jalesar. It is admitted that some of the plots are situated within the municipal limits and others are outside those limits. These plots are in three khewats, and in the revenue papers are shown under the heading haqiat mutafarriqa (miscellaneous property), and are distinct from khewat 1 which represents the entire 20 biswas and is shown as the khalsa, share. The learned Additional District Judge has found thatthe said khewats stand by themselves, and the owners thereof are owners of specific plots, and have no concern with the administration of the village There is no doubt whatever that they must be, termed as petty proprietors as defined in the Pre-emption Act,2. The position than is that neither the plaintiffs no...
Pandit Ram Charan Vs. Mathura Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.683
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was instituted more than one year after the registration of the deed of sale and the only question that arises for consideration in appeal is one of limitation. The property sold consisted of a two-pies undivided share out of a 4-pies share which constituted Khewat. No. 1 owned by Nathoo and Dasaiyan. Nathoo alone has sold his two-pies share to the vendee. The interest sold is obviously a fractional undivided zemindari share. Such an undivided share cannot be owned and possessed separately and is, therefore, not capable of physical possession within the meaning of Article 10 of the Limitation Act.2. This point is quite clear from the Full Bench case of Batul Begam v. Mansur Ali 20 A. 315 : A.W.N. (1898) 61 (F.B.) which was affirmed by their Lordships of the Privy Council by a judgment reported as Batul Begam v. Mansur Ali Khan 24 A. 17 : 28 I.A. 248 : 5 C.W.N. 888 : 8 Sar. 133 : 3 Bom. L.R. 707 (P.C.), The ...
Kirpal Singh Vs. Sheoambar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All283
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for redemption of an alleged mortgage by conditional sale. On 3rd November 1909 a document, ostensibly a sale-deed, was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants for Rs. 1,300 and on the same date there was an agreement by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to retransfer the property on certain conditions. The plaintiff alleged that the two documents were evidence of one and the same transaction which constituted a mortgage by conditional sale and that he was entitled to redeem the property. He also alleged that in the Jeth preceding the institution of the suit he had actually tendered the amount but the defendants had refused to take it. His suit was instituted within 15 years of the deeds.2. The defendants denied the execution of any such agreement, although it had been registered and a certified copy of it was produced. In the written statement the defence taken up was that the transaction ...
Makhan Lal Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All355
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff Makhan Lal was in possession of certain land under a usufructuary mortgage, having acquired by purchase the rights of the original usufructuary mortgagees. The defendants obtained a mortgage on 14th July 1925, of the right, title, and interest of one Tika. Tika on 18th December 1909, mortgaged the property to Makhan Lal. Suits were brought on the two mortgages. On 5th August 1919, the prior mortgagee instituted a suit for sale (No. 480 of 1919) without impleading the 'puisne mortgagee. A preliminary decree was passed which was followed by a decree absolute and the property was sold by auction and purchased by the prior mortgagees. The plaintiff in the year 1921 instituted a suit (No. 1250 of 1921) for sale on his mortgage of 18th December 1909, and obtained a decree. He did not implead the prior mortgagee. When the plaintiff went to the revenue Court to get his name recorded as owner of the property his application was dismissed...
Daya Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All452
Dalal, J.1. Dr. Katju who argued this application for revision desired to impress the Court by stating that members of both sections of the Radhaswami sect were mostly LL. Bs. and not likely to cause a breach of the peace. He has been kind enough to furnish this Court with a typed copy of all the relevant papers which has been a great help and saved a considerable amount of time. On the vary first page there is a letter of the then District Magistrate Mr. Dreyfus, dated 12th June 1927, in which he speaks of a complaint by members of the faction whom Dr. Katju represents that; they were pummelled and pushed by LL. B's. of the opposite faction. The whole typed record is full of indication as to a fear of a breach of the peace, if no orders were passed to restrict the two parties and it is therefore idle to argue here that there was no possibility of a breach of the peace. The heading of the very order objected to shows Emperor v. Nehal Chand, that proceedings were started on the complain...
Chandan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All274
Boys, J.1. This is an application of three men on the revisional side of the Court asking that an order under Section 110, Criminal P.C., for filing security be set aside. There are no less than 11 grounds in the application for revision, of which some five have been argued before this Court.2. It has already been held by the single Judge who referred this case to the present Bench that there is no force in ground 1 that the applicants had no notice under Section 112 before they were arrested. We agree that the terms of Section 113 were fully complied with and that no notice before arrest is necessary.3. Next, it is urged that the applicants were not given the substance of the information against them in accordance with the terms of Section 112. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the decision in Emperor v. Ramghulam A.I.R. 1927 Oudh 306, in which it was held that ordinarily it is sufficient under Section 112 if that portion of the clause of Section 110 which is applicable to the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »