Allahabad Court March 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.
Hardani Lal Vs. Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All704
Dalal, J.1. This application is dismissed. As regards the third ground of appeal, I state most emphatically that it is wrong. It is alleged that under Order 21, Rule 66, it is incumbent on the decree-holder and the Court to see that the proclamation is correct and the sale following an incorrect proclamation must be set aside. This is quite a wrong view to take of the duties of the decree-holder and the Court. Sir George Knox who had large experience in this matter was continuously of opinion and always informed the subordinate Courts that it was as much the duty of the judgment-debtor as of the decree-holder to see that the sale proclamation under Order 21, Rule 66 was prepared correctly. If a judgment-debtor goes to sleep over his right he is well punished if a wrong sale proclamation is prepared, and he has only to blame himself if he suffers any loss through such incorrect preparation. The terms of Order 21, Rule 66 were specially prepared on a memorandum submitted by Sir George Kn...
Lachmi Chand Babu Lal Vs. Unkar Mal Chote Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All351
Dalal, J.1. A ruling of any High Court is the greatest calamity that could happen to a subordinate Court as it chokes every pore of his intelligence. This is a second appeal from the dismissal of an appeal by a Court of a Subordinate Judge which refused to exercise its discretion under Section 5, Lim. Act. The Court has stated certain facts, admitted them as correct and then decided by reason of certain rulings that the appeal cannot be admitted under Section 5. No general principle is enunciated, and the Court does not take any trouble to exercise his discretion. If there is any principle enunciated relating to the decision it is to the effect that the mistake of a clerk is tantamount to the mistake of a party.2. This general proposition is subject to limitation. What has been accepted as true in the present case is this. The trial Court delivered judgment on 24th March 1926, and the very next day on 25th March the plaintiff delivered costs to his pleader's clerk to obtain a copy of t...
Mauji and anr. Vs. Bhagole and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All419; 121Ind.Cas.224
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The pedigree is set forth in the plaint. The plaintiffs are the grandsons of Phul Singh, another grandson of whom was Jugal Kishore who is dead. The vendor is Mt. Sardar his widow. Both parties are cosharers in the village, but the plaintiffs claim preference on account of their relationship with Mt. Sardar. The lower appellate Court has held that though the vendor Mt. Sardar was not related by blood to the plaintiffs-respondents, the latter have a preferential claim as against the defendants-appellants. The property held by the widow is a Hindu widow's estate, and the learned Judge has thought that the plaintiffs being related to her husband have preference. He has conceded that if the property transferred by her were her self-acquired property or her stridhan the plaintiffs would not have come within the meaning of Section 12, Sub-clause (3). Now, in order to succeed the plaintiffs must not only show that they are ...
Nasrat Ali Vs. Rudra Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All448
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the defendant was an ex-proprietary tenant in the mahal in which the property sold was situate and the suit for pre-emption against him did not lie. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts The learned Judge has remarked that the plaintiff's witness Tajammul Husain has stated that the villageis divided by perfect partition into six pattis,and then gone on to say thatthe share sold is in patti Ghissa, and the ex-proprietary holding of the defendant vendee is in patti Ali Bakhsh.2. He has thus thought that when a village is divided into several pattis by perfect partition each patti is practically a separate mahal and the defendant is a stranger to the mahal. The whole finding is based on an entire misconception of what a perfect partition is as well as of the evidence of Tajammul Husain. Tajammul Husain only said that the village is divided into six complete pattis and ...
Debi Prasad Vs. Shamsher Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All463; 118Ind.Cas.45
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of a certain share of zamindari property on the ground that the sale was effected by a joint brother in favour of the defendant Shamsher Khan and the transfer was not made for any valid necessity of the family. The question of the house need not be considered as the plaintiff has obtained a decree for possession thereof. Both the subordinate Courts held that Debi Prasad and his brother Chandrika Prasad were members of a joint Hindu family and that the sale was invalid. The sale included zamindari property, and the lower appellate Court held that with respect to that property the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act of 1901. That part of the suit was, therefore, dismissed and Debi Prasad has come here in second appeal.2. The lower appellate Court has failed to notice the time when the sale was effected in the course of partition proceedings. Shamsher Khan was also a cosharer in the village in which Dabi Pr...
Padam Singh and ors. Vs. Reoti Saram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All481; 118Ind.Cas.372
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents on the basis of a mortgage bond executed on 23rd June 1914. The plaintiffs are the daughter's sons of the mortgagee. The defendants, when the suit was filed included the two mortgagors and their sons. During, the pendency of the:suit one of the mortgagors died. The mortgage bond was for Rs. 300 and this amount was recited in the deed as money for the price of a bullock previously purchased (because interest is calculated) and for the settlement of a running bahi khata account in respect of patty items of food.2. The plaintiffs in para. 5 of their plaint based the liability of the sons of the actual mortgagors on the allegation that the debt was contracted for lawful necessity of the family and that the family had been benefited by the debt. It is important to notice that the liability of the sons of the mortgagors was not based on any allegation that the money was required to meet the antecedent debts of th...
Mahadeo Bharthi Vs. Mahadeo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All506; 118Ind.Cas.513
Niamatullah, J.1. The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff-appellant Mahadeo Bharthi in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ghazipur for a declaration that the property specified in list A annexed to the plaint is his private property in absolute ownership, and in the alternative for a declaration that it is not held in trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature governed by Act 14 of 1920. It was necessitated by an order, dated 31st August 1925, passed by the District Judge of Ghazipur under Section 5, Act 14 of 1920(Charitable and Religious Trusts Act) declaring the property in dispute to be held in trust of a charitable and religious nature existing for public purposes. Madho Rai alias Mool Bharthi and Sheo Prasad Pandey, the respondents to this appeal, were impleaded as defendants to the action, as the aforesaid order was obtained by them on their application for examination of accounts of the alleged trust property....
Mt. Ashrafunissa Begam Vs. Sahdeo Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All479; 117Ind.Cas.609
Ashworth, J.1. This second appeal arises out of suit brought by the plaintiffs against their father, defendant second party, and the wife of a decree-holder against their father, for a declaration that a decree obtained by the husband of defendant 1 against their father on the basis of a deed of security, dated 18th January 1919, is void as against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs lost the case in the trial Court, but were successful in the lower appellate Court. Hence this appeal. The plaintiffs and their father admittedly formed a joint Hindu family in comfortable circumstances. The father in addition to his own zamindari undertook the management of the zamindari belonging to defendant 1, and to secure his keeping correct accounts executed a mortgage-deed of his own joint family property. On this deed a decree was obtained. The sons pleaded that the joint family property was not liable under the security bond or under the decree obtained thereon.2. The trial Court held that even if the...
Achhaibar Singh Vs. Rajmati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All483; 121Ind.Cas.111
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for sale of certain property on the basis of a mortgage. The property was mortgaged to him by one Behari Das Goshain. The mortgage was a simple mortgage. Subsequently Behari Das sold the equity of redemption to Mt. Rajmati who is the mother of the defendant-respondents.2. One plea taken in defence was that the property being waqf property, Behari Das, the mortgagor, was not entitled to mortgage it. This plea was repelled by the trial Court on two findings. One finding was that the property was not waqf property, and the second was that in any case the defendants having obtained possession of the property from their mother who got the equity of redemption from Behari Das were estopped under Section 65(a), T.P. Act, from denying the right of Behari Das to mortgage the property.3. In first appeal the Subordinate Judge set aside the finding of the trial Court as to the property being waqf property. Whether he con...
Gokul Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All262
ORDERMears, C.J.1. This is a transfer application in which Gokul Prasad and others ask that a case now before a Special Magistrate, Captain Bijai Prasad Singh, may be transferred to some other competent Magistrate's Court outside the district of Benares.2. The affidavit in support of this application is untrue in one important respect. Para. 11 runs as follows:That the learned trying Magistrate was a class-fellow of B. Sahadeo Singh, Advocate, and is on terms of intimacy with him.3. The statement 'on terms of intimacy with him' is a falsehood. The Magistrate in his explanation has said:About fifteen years ago Babu Sahadeo Singh Advocate, was my class-fellow for a few months. I know him then very casually and after that I have never met (him) as a friend or intimate and have never exchanged any social visits as he is not known to me well.4. If a case was to be transferred on every occasion on which a Magistrate fifteen years before had rubbed shoulders with somebody who was either a com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »