Allahabad Court February 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.
Banarsi Das and ors. Vs. Sagar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All403
1. This is an application purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P.C. in First Appeal No. 358 of 1925. The prayer in this application is to be found in para. 8 which runs as follows:That considering that the judgment was not delivered for a considerably long time after the hearing of the argument and that it was possible to miss important points advanced in argument and considering the technical defect in delivery of judgment which makes it a nullity, it is prayed that the case may be treated as undecided and may be re-heard or in the alternative if the judgment may be considered to be a legal judgment it may be revised.2. This application is signed by a counsel who did not appear in the case, and Mr. K.D. Malaviya on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Husain asked us to postpone the hearing as Mr. Muhammad Husain was not in Court. We did not consider that a sufficient reason for postponing the hearing when the counsel must have known that this Bench was constituted specially to hear the applic...
Ram Sarup Vs. Girdhari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All371
Boys, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit by a number of owners of houses constituting what is described as a mohalla. The mohalla appears to be self-contained with on one side a large gateway with two 'sehdaries,' one on each side. A person, Man Singh, who formerly owned one of the houses inside the mohalla but who sold it 10 or 12 years ago, has recently claimed to sell the two 'sehdaries' to one of the defendants who has proceeded to convert one or both of them into kothas. He is also alleged to have obstructed the flow of water through the gateway. But that is not now in dispute. The plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they had joint rights of ownership in the two 'sehdaries.' These, before one set of the defendants had proceeded to alter their nature, were apparently in the common form of what are known as 'sehdaries,' i.e., they are largely open rooms with three doors to them, rooms such as are commonly occupied by watchmen or chaukidars. The m...
B. Narsingh Prasad Singh and anr. Vs. Rupan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All388
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by Rupan Singh, respondent 1, for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage of 6th April 1895, for a sum of Rs. 325, executed by Bindesh Singh and others in favour of one of the appellants and his predecessor-in-interest. The mortgage-deed was a usufructuary mortgage, and a very small share of mauzas Kori, Gurdaspur, Jadupur, Posi, and Lalapur in pargana Kaswar Raja, district Benares, was mortgaged. The mortgage provided that it was to be in force for 20 years and that the mortgagor had the right to redeem that mortgage on 19th September 1914, and if redemption was not effected on that date it was not to be redeemed for another period of 20 years. The original mortgagors or their heirs, on 20th March 1914, executed a deed in favour of Rupan Singh and left a sum of Rs. 325 for payment of the mortgage, which is the subject of redemption in the present case. Rupan Singh has instituted the present suit for r...
Faqir Pasi and anr. Vs. Behari Kundigar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All411
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellants for redemption of a certain mortgage of a house. The mortgage set out that the mortgagee was to do all the repairs of the house in question and moreover to rebuild certain dilapidated portions. In addition to enjoyment of the house he was to get Rs. 24 per cent interest per year. The mortgage was also not redeemable for a period of 20 years.2. The trial Court came to a finding that the present value of the house is about Rs. 1,000, and that according to the terms of the mortgage-deed the mortgage debt must have amounted at the date, when the mortgage became redeemable, to a sum of Rs. 2,120. It consequently held that the provision as to interest at this high rate amounted in effect to a denial of all rights to redeem, and allowed redemption upon repayment of the principal amount only, namely Rs. 200.3. In appeal the Subordinate Judge held that the repairs and rebuilding of the house must have swa...
Ram Sarup Vs. Girdhari Lal and ors. and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.737
Boys, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit by a number of owners of houses constituting what is described as a mohalla. The mohalla appears to be self-contained with on one side a large gateway with two 'sehdaries', one on each side. A person, Man Singh, who formerly owned one of the houses inside the mohalla but who sold it 10 or 12 years ago, has recently claimed to sell the two 'sehdaries' to one of the defendants who has proceeded to convert one or both of them into kothas. He is also alleged to have obstructed the flow of water through the gateway. But that is not now in dispute. The plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they had joint rights of ownership in the two 'sehdaries.' These, before one set of the defendants had proceeded to alter their nature, were apparently in the common form of what are known as 'sehdaries', i.e., they are largely open rooms with three doors to them--rooms such as are commonly occupied by watchmen or chaukidars. The m...
Tika Ram Vs. Ram Bharosa and
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.819
Dalal, J.1. The opinion of the two Subordinate Courts is, in my opinion, wrong. The plaintiff mortgaged his property on the 2nd of January, 1926, and the stipulation was that the money would be paid on promise within four years. This clause does not stand by itself as the mortgagee bound himself not to sue for redemption within the period of four years. The lower Appellate Court has written a judgment which I fail to understand. He says that the stipulation was that the money was to be paid within four years. The deed, however, does not go on to say what the penalty would be if this was not done and whether the mortgagor's right to redeem would be barred if he did not pay within that time. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that if payment was not made within that time the mortgagee would be entitled to sue for sale on foot of his simple mortgage-bond. This is not a privilege which a mortgagee gets by the kindness of the mortgagor, but that is the statutory right o...
Ram Ghulam Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All396
Dalal, J.1. Young Sessions Judges get so excited at the evidence of roguery that they miss the main consideration in Sessions trial which is to prove the specific charge against an accused person. Possibly when the learned Judge reaches my age he would be more tolerant.2. The appellant Rim Ghulam Singh a zamindar has been convicted of an offence under Section 468 I.P.C. The long and very able judgment gives information about everything except the charge against Ram Ghulam Singh. After reading the judgment no doubt can remain in any one's mind as to the corruption prevailing in the District Board of Hamirpur, and the corrupt practise of every official connected with that unfortunate body. The reader, however, will be bewildered at these extraneous matters and will fail to discover how the charge of forgery is brought home to the appellant. It, therefore, became the duty of this Court to investigate this matter without the help to which it is entitled of the opinion and relevant observat...
Jiwan Singh Vs. Dalip Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All389
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by one Dalip Singh, a purchaser of a mortgage dated 6th January 1912, executed by the father of defendants 1 to 5, in favour of defendant 6.2. Defendant 7 held a subsequent mortgage and put up the property for sale in execution of his mortgage. Defendant 8 bought the property at the sale at the instance of Niranjan Sarup, defendant 7.3. Plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 626 as due on the mortgage of 6th January 1912, the amount of the mortgage money being Rs. 65. Twelve years having elapsed since the date of the mortgage the plaintiffs claimed that a bond dated 27th March 1914 acknowledged the mortgage in suit and they therefore claim that the suit though filed on 6th March 1925, was not barred by limitation. The two lower Courts have repelled the contention of defendant 8 that the claim was barred by limitation. Defendant 8 has come up in appeal before us and it is contended by the learned Counsel for th...
Jaideo Singh and anr. Vs. Munshi Dhoom Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All419a
Ashworth, J.1. These four appeals arise out of two suits brought by Jaideo Singh and Kunj Behari against Dhum Singh and others for partition of a certain house in Bareilly. It is common ground that the two plaintiffs are the grandson and son respectively of one Bahadur Singh, who was the uncle of one Dilsukh Rai. It is also common ground that the house in question was at one time the joint property of Champat Rai and Dilsukh Rai, although it was a question whether Dilsukh Rai represented himself alone or the whole branch of the family to which he belonged. The suit was resisted by members of Dilsukh Rai's branch and others, but one of them Nityanand, the son of Dilsukh Rai, admitted the claim for partition, provided that he was given his father's share in the house, which he said was one half. The trial Court decreed the suit.2. On appeal the District Judge found that although the plaintiff's branch of the family or a single member of that branch had been joint with Champat Rai as owne...
Rafiq-un-nissa Bibi Vs. Abdul Shakur Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All400
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 359, principal and interest on foot of a mortgage-deed, dated 20th June 1922. This mortgage-deed was a deed by which Mt. Rafiq-un-nissa, defendant 1 had mortgaged her mortgagee rights. The plaintiff, therefore, sues on what is known as a sub-mortgage. Mt. Rafiq-un-nissa had become mortgagee under a mortgage executed on 4th April 1915 by one Abdul Razzaq. The plaintiff asks to recover his money by sale, if necessary, of the actual property and not merely by sale of the mortgagee rights. In his plaint he has indicated that he desires a decree in form No. 9, appendix (d), Sch. 1, Civil P.C. that form being made a statutory form imposed by Order 48, Rule 3, which provides that the forms given in the appendices shall be used, for the purposes therein mentioned. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit. The objection was taken in those Courts that this suit was barred un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »