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.
Ramadhar Pande and anr. Vs. Musammat Amraji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-07-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.368
Dalal, J.1. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has entirely misconceived the law on the subject of malicious prosecution. Reference should be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Balbhaddar Singh v. Badri Sah 95 Ind. Cas. 329 : 24 A.L.J. 453 at p. 457 : 3 O.W.N. 499 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 46 : 43 C.L.J. 521 : 28 Bom. L.R. 921 : (1926) M.W.N. 482 : 51 M.L.J. 42 : 30 C.W.N. 866 : 29 O.C. 163 : 7 P.L.T. 591 : 1 Luck. 215 (P.C.). They emphatically disagreed with the opinion of the Courts in India that a plaintiff in a case for malicious prosecution had to prove that he was innocent of the charge upon which he was tried. This is exactly what the learned Judge has done by calling upon the plaintiffs to prove that the charge brought against them was false. The result arrived at by the lower Appellate Court on a wrong interpretation of the law cannot be accepted as a finding of fact. What the plaintiffs were called upon to prove was that they were prosecu...
Raghunath Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Partap Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All408
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents against the defendant-appellants for redemption of two mortgages both dated 22nd June 1864. One of them was a mortgage by conditional sale. The property mortgaged was shares in five villages, and the money secured was Rs. 6,999. It was a condition that the usufruct should be held equivalent to interest on the money. The second deed was of the same date and secured a loan of Rs. 1,600 which was to carry interest at 12 annas per cent. per mensem. So far as the present appeal is concerned the parties admit that this second deed operated as a further charge.2. The facts of the case, which it is necessary to give for the purpose of this appeal, are briefly as follows:3. In 1877 foreclosure proceedings were taken by the mortgagees, but they proved abortive, because the mortgagees did not pursue the matter to an end by the necessary legal process. In 1880 there was a partition between the mortgagees of certain vil...
K. Banerjea, Proprietor of the Firm K. Banerjea Vs. Manzar Ali Sokhta
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-06-1929
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.906
Young, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Allahabad in favour of the plaintiff in an action for breach of contract. The defence was struck out for noncompliance with an order to file papers and list of witnesses. The plaintiff's case was then heard ex parte. The appellant asks that the decree should be set aside on the ground that the learned Subordinate Judge should not have struck out the defence, nor heard the plaintiff's case ex parte, and that on the materials on the record the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree which was awarded to him.2. As to the first ground of appeal it appears that on the 26th of August, 1927, the defendant filed a medical certificate saying that he was ill with enteritis and jaundice and that it was hoped that in a fortnight or so he would be cured. On the 1st of September, the plaintiff filed an application for discovery of document under Order XI, Rule 12, and an order was made that the defendant should file ...
GayadIn Singh and ors. Vs. Kalka Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All332
Dalal, J.1. This matter in dispute here is whether a certain alleged statement in Court, which statement has been weeded out, may be taken as an acknowledgment of liability as mortgagee by the person who made the statement. The acknowledgment is sought to be proved under Section 19, Lim. Act, in order to extend the period of limitation which had expired at the date of the institution of the suit for redemption from the date of the mortgage, 13th June 1856. Both the subordinate Courts have held that statement was in writing and signed by Sheo Nandan Singh. Those findings are binding here. Both the subordinate Courts have held the statement to be a sufficient acknowledgment of Sheo Nandan's liability to be redeemed at the time in 1884.2. The question is of considerable difficulty because the statement is not before the Court, and the circumstances under which the statement was made and the exact words cannot be gathered from the oral testimony and from the judgment of the settlement Cour...
Mansa Tewari and ors. Vs. Parmeshar Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All327
1. This is a second appeal by the defendants. The plaintiffs among whom are people, who were originally made pro forma defendants, brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration of their title and for a perpetual injunction. The suit arose out of the following facts: The pedigree given in the plaint will show that one Sheodan Tewari had four sons: Raman Tewari. Meharban Tewari, Sita Ram Tewari, and Diha Ram Tewari. These four sons divided the 'birt jajmani' of Sheodan Tewari in four equal shares, that the 'gifts' received in three months of the year went to one son and ''gifts' received in another three months to another son and so on. Diha Ram died and his heirs, according to the pedigree, were his nephews, the sons of Sita Ram. Kishun Dayal Tewari, one of the sons of Sita Ram, claimed to have been adopted by Diha Ram. In that capacity, he claimed the entire 'three months' of Diha Ram. It is said that Sita Ram was then alive and he persuaded his sons to settl...
Fazlul Rahman Khan Vs. Barumal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All213; 117Ind.Cas.817
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff is zamindar of the village. As it pleases a plaintiff better to come on wrong allegations than to come on right ones he made out a wrong case for the ejectment of Baru Mal and Kashmiri Das from a shop situated in a hamlet of which he is zamindar. His allegation was that he had let Baru Mal into possession of the shop and subsequently Baru Mal denied his, title and took a lease for 99 years from kashmiri Das. On this ground he sued for ejectment. The truth was that kashmiri Das was occupant of the shop and had leased the shop to Baru Mal. Kasmiri Das obtained the shop in 1915 as successor in interest of one Parbhu Lal who had obtained the shop on partition in 1904. putting aside the false allegation of the plaint the questions which arise are:(1) Whether Kashmiri Das had obtained proprietary title to the site of the shop by adverse possession; and(2) Whether there was a custom of transfer in this particular hamlet of the right of residence.2. It is not contende...
Ram Charan and anr. Vs. Tulshi Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All306
Mukerji, J.1. The first two defendants in the suit are the appellants in this second appeal. One Durga Prasad died possessed of certain properties movable and immovable. One of his houses is the bone of contention in this litigation. Durga Prasad died in June 1921. Before his death on 2nd April 1920 he executed a will which was subsequently registered on 5th May 1920. By this will he bequeathed his entire property in favour of his cousin defendant 3, Mt. Sunder Kuar. In his lifetime Durga Prasad brought a suit on 24th August 1920 to obtain the cancellation of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by himself in favour of the present appellants Ram Charan and Ram Sarup who are brothers and are distant agnates of Durga Prasad. The ground on which that suit was brought was that Durga Prasad never executed the document, that by threats the two defendants in the suit had succeeded in obtaining his thumb-impression on a piece of blank paper and that by some stratagem and collusion with...
Jai Nandan Tewari Vs. Umrao Koeri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All305
Ashworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two redemption suits between the same parties. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiffs had not proved the two mortgages set up. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit on the ground that although the two mortgages set up were not proved, the defendant admitted that the whole property was mortgaged under 12, and not two mortgage-deeds, of approximately the same date. The mortgagee now appeals substantially on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to succeed on different mortgages to those set up by them.2. There was also a question in the lower Courts of the inability of the plaintiffs to prove that they were the successors-in-interest of the original mortgagors. The lower appellate Court found that one of them was a successor-in-interest of one of the mortgagors, and this finding of fact cannot be impugned in second appeal as admitted by the appellant's counsel.3. The only question that ar...
Raghubar Dayal Vs. Puran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All432
1. This is plaintiff's appeal. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the order passed by the learned Munsif on 26th February 1925, dismissing the suit was an order of dismissal for default. The order on the face of it shows that it was not a dismissal for default. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court states in the judgment as follows:No doubt the Court below was a little wrong in writing the judgment on merits.2. This also seems to indicate to us that the lower appellate Court did not treat the order as an order dismissing the plaintiff's suit for default. The dismissal was on the merits, and therefore an appeal lay against the decree of the Munsif. We are of opinion that the Court below was not right in holding that no appeal lay. The same view was taken on a similar order in the case of Gaura Bibi v. Ghasita [1912] 34 All. 1233. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and remand the case under Order 41, Rule 23, to that C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›