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.
Babu Pares Ram Singh Vs. Raj Kumar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.620
1. These four connected appeals arise out of four separate suits for preemption. On the 18thof March, 1925, Musammat. Rajkali Kunwar sold a 2 pie share in 10 villages to three vendees Raj Kumar, Pares Ram and Ram Raj Singh for Rs. 500 without any specification of shares. The suits were decreed by the first Court on the ground that Ram Raj was a stranger, and the plaintiffs had, therefore, a right to, pre-empt the property against all the vendees. The learned District Judge has allowed the appeals and dismissed the suits. His judgment is based on the findings that Raj Kumar is a recorded co-sharer, that Pares Ram although not recorded is the brother of Kagji who is a recorded co-sharer and with whom he forms a joint Hindu family, and that Ram Raj is an ex-proprietary tenant in this mahal though not in the villages in which the shares are situated.2. It is not disputed before us that Raj Kumar is a recorded co-sharer. We must also accept the finding of the Court below that Pares Ram bein...
Abdul Aziz Vs. Shah Abdul Rahim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All291
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor and it arises out of the following facts: One Abdul Rahim executed a simple mortgage in favour of the Kayashta Trading and Banking Corporation for Rs. 600 which was payable in two years. The property hypothecated consisted of three houses and the rate of interest agreed upon was one rupee per cent per mensem at six-monthly rests. The mortgagee assigned the mortgage to one Shamsuddin on 19th March 1915. Abdul Rahim sold one of the mortgaged houses to Abdul Aziz, the appellant, on 14th June 1918. for a sum of Rs. 1,100 out of which Rs. 601 were left with the vendee for payment of the mortgage-debt in part. This payment was not made. Shamsuddin having died, his heirs, namely, Mt. Shahidan Bibi and others brought a suit on the mortgage dated 13th April 1912, against Abdul Rahim, Abdul Aziz and others. A preliminary decree was passed on 13th July 1926. The final decree followed on 14th January 1927. The decree-holder applied to the Munsif of ...
Sah Ramchand Vs. Panna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All308
1. This is an appeal from the decree dated 17th February 1926 passed by the learned District Judge, Agra, purporting to dismiss the plaintiff-appellant's appeal before him for nonpayment of Court-fee within a time granted for deficiency therein being made good.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen for redemption of a mortgage without payment of amount, or in the alternative on payment of Rs. 3,661. The Court of first instance decreed the claim on payment of Rs. 27,000 within the usual period of grace. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge of Agra valuing his appeal at Rs. 3,203-10-0. By an order, dated 7th January 1926, the learned District Judge ruled that the Court-fee payable on appeal should be calculated on Rs. 27,000, which was held to be the value of the appeal before him. Three weeks' time was allowed to the plaintiff to make good the deficiency. An extension of two weeks was allowed subsequently. Before the expiry of the ...
Banwari Barhi and ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All387
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of a perpetual lease of a fixed-rate holding by his father on the ground that the lease was executed by his father as manager but for no legal necessity.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit on a finding that a question of tenancy right arose and as the revenue Court had decided that the defendant was tenant, the civil Court could not deal with this suit.3. In appeal the lower appellate Court held that Section 273, Tenancy Act, could not apply to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court in a case like this. No doubt the defendant was a tenant if the lease were a valid lease, and it would be a valid lease until avoided by the son. The revenue Court's decision could not prevent the plaintiff bringing a suit for avoidance of the lease. It found that the alienation was not for legal necessity and decreed the suit.4. In the present appeal five pleas are taken. The first plea is that S...
Parmeshri Kunwar and ors. Vs. Dhuman Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All393
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent and other persons as plaintiffs for the demolition of certain constructions made by the defendants-appellants on a vacant space in the abadi. The defence was that these constructions were only on the old foundations of previous constructions which had been enjoyed by the defendants, so that the defendants' enjoyment of the land occupied by them was established and could not be interfered with. The trial Court also held that as the plaintiffs had not joined with themselves all the cosharers who might have complained of the constructions and as the plaintiffs had not shown that they particularly suffered by reason of the constructions they could not be given a decree. The lower appellate Court in appeal, by one only of the plaintiffs, preferring the report of an amin to that of defendants' oral evidence, decided against the constructions being on the foundations of old constructions and against the defendant...
Brij Kumar Lal Sahu Vs. Jagdamba Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All671; 121Ind.Cas.270
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Seth has explained the facts in his usual clear manner. I am afraid that I am not in agreement with him on the question of law. The facts are somewhat singular. A simple money decree was put into execution by sale of the property of the judgment-debtors. The property was put up to sale on 20th April 1927, and purchased by the decree-holder Bhagwan Das for Rs. 255-6-6. The judgment-debtors were seven, of whom three objected on 19th May 1927. The objection was heard on 2nd July 1927, and time was given to the objectors either to deposit the decree money, or to discover another purchaser who would pay more. These three judgment-debtors out of seven produced one Brij Kumar Lal on 2nd August 1927. This purchaser paid a sum of Rs. 300 on 6th August 1927, and the sale was settled with him and at once confirmed. On 25th August 1927 two of the other judgment-debtors appeared and submitted to the Court that the sale in favour of Brij Kumar Lal was a collusive transaction between ...
ismail and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All705
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Allahabad of Ismail and Ishaq, sons of Husain Bakhsh and Abdul Razak, son of Abdul Ghafur, on a charge under Section 60(a), Act 4 of 1910, Excise Act. Ismail and Ishaq are brothers and Abdul Razak is their cousin. The three men had been living together for a considerable time in a house at Gulab Bari, and carrying on business together. On 2nd April 1928 their house was raided by the police and ten small and one large packet of cocaine hydrochlorate were found in a room in which they were all present. The cocaine was enclosed in paper, and the packets were found partly submerged in water, having been thrown into a degchi a few moments before their discovery, as was evidenced by the fact that the cocaine which had come in contact with water had not dissolved. The only explanation given at the moment was a general statement that the cocaine must have been planted there.2. Before arriving at the hou...
Emperor Vs. Ismail and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1929
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.648
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Allahabad of Ismail and Ishaq, sons of Husain Bakhsh, and Abdul Razzak, son of Abdul Ghafur, on a charge under Section 60(a) of Act IV of 1910, Excise Act.2. Ismail and Ishaq are brothers and Abdul Razzak is their cousin. The three men had been living together for a considerable time in a house at Gulab Bari, and carrying on business together. On the 2nd of April, 1928, their house was raided by the Police and ten small and one large packet of cocaine hydrochlorate were found in a room in which they were all present. The cocaine was enclosed in paper, and the packets were found partly submerged in water, having been thrown into a degchi a few moments before their discovery, as was evidenced by the fact that the cocaine which had come in contact with water had not dissolved. The only explanation given at the moment was a general statement that the cocaine must have been planted there.3. Before ar...
Shiva Prasad Naithani Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All347a
Dalal, J.1. On behalf of one Shiva Prasad Naithani this Court is moved to revise an order of the District Magistrate of Garhwal directing a warrant issued by the Native State of Tehri to be executed within his jurisdiction. The application in one way may be summarily dismissed, because the information placed before the Court by the learned Assistant Government Advocate is that Shiva Prasad Naithani was arrested in pursuance of a warrant endorsed by the District Magistrate of Saharanpur and not in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate of Garhwal dated 9th December of which revision is sought. This mistake, however, may be due to the want of information of the person who has sworn an affidavit, and an application of this importance I would not like to dismiss on a technical ground. In whatever way Shiva Prasad Naithani may have been arrested in British India, it is admitted in the affidavit that he is no longer within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, but is in cu...
Tayyab-un-nissa Vs. Nasarullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All378
Dalal, J.1. The decision of the lower appellate Court is somewhat summary. He referred to a deed of gift, when really the gift alleged by the defendants is an oral one. The plaintiff Mussammat's name is entered in the village record, and on the basis of that entry she sued certain persons for recovery of her share of the profits. The defence was that under a civil Court decision the plaintiff had been held not to be the owner of the property in suit. This is not accurate. There has been no civil litigation with respect to this property. The civil litigation related to a suit for possession brought by the plaintiff female in the civil Court against the same defendants, in which it was held that a gift of her property had been made by the plaintiff's mother Mt. Mariam in favour of the plaintiff's brother Saif Ullah. That suit, however, related to property in another village, and not to property in the village in the present revenue Court suit. It is urged that finding will act as res jud...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »