Allahabad Court April 1929 Judgments
Prohit Basant Lal and anr. Vs. Basanti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All551; 117Ind.Cas.102
1. This is a short appeal and is on behalf of two of the several defendants in the suit. The suit was based on two mortgages. A preliminary decree was made in the Court of first instance, and an appeal was lodged in this Court. The appeal was decided on 17th July 1922. Within three years of the decision of the appellate Court, on 16th July 1925 the plaintiff applied for the making of a final decree for sale. To this application certain objections were taken by some of the judgment-debtors, partly with success. By an order, dated 30th January 1926, the learned Subordinate Judge directed that a final decree in terms of the final decision of the High Court be prepared. In this Court Jit is urged that property, item 17 in the final decree, prepared by the Court below (see p. 54) was omitted from the application of the plaintiff, which is printed at p. 46. It is urged that, as the plaintiff herself failed to apply for the sale of this property, there should not have been a final decree orde...
Tag this Judgment!Dip Chand Vs. Sheo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All593
1. This is an application to revise the order of the munsif of Chandausi, dated 16th June 1927, and arises under the following circumstances:2. In execution of a simple money decree against the applicant, his property was sold in three lots on 10th March 1927. One Shiam Behari purchased the lot No. 1. The second lot was purchased, on the spot, by one Brij Bhukan Saran, but he declared that he was purchasing the same for one Kunwar Bahadur. The third lot was purchased on the spot by one Sarra Mal, but he declared that he was purchasing the property for himself and one Mohamad Raza Khan. On 2nd April 1927, the judgment-debtor put in an application to the Court stating that he had deposited the decretal amount and the 5% on the purchase money, and asked that the sale might be set aside. The application was, as the application itself mentioned, under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. In the body of the application the judgment-debtor said that the purchasers were Shiam Behari, Kidar Nath and S...
Tag this Judgment!Johari Mal and anr. Vs. Balmakund and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All669; 116Ind.Cas.802
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellants in the Court of the Munsif of Khurja for recovery of Rs. 1,600, being the value of the crops which the defendants first party (defendants 1 and 2) are alleged to have misappropriated. Defendant 1 is the landlord of the holding of which one Lahori is the occupancy tenant. Plaintiff 1 (Johari Mal) is the sub-tenant holding it from the latter. Plaintiff 2 and defendant second party (defendants 3 and 4) cultivated the land in 1332F. under a batai arrangement with plaintiff 1. Rent having fallen in arrears in 1332F., the defendant 1 distrained the rabi crops on 19th March 1925, and appointed his servant, defendant 2, as the shehna. The plaintiffs' case is that on 7th April 1925, the crops were taken away by the defendants first party, who misappropriated the same, and that sometime afterwards defendant 1 obtained a decree for arrears of rent which the plaintiff 1 had to satisfy to avoid a threatened arrest in execution ...
Tag this Judgment!Rachhpal Singh Vs. Sheo Ratan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All692; 118Ind.Cas.584
Boys, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit instituted in 1926 for possession of certain immovable property. The plaintiff had previously in 1924 brought a suit of exactly the same nature and against the same defendants, but in 1925 he had obtained permission under Order 23, Rule 1(2) to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, subject to the condition that he must pay the costs of the defendants in the first suit before filing any second suit. The record containing the actual proceedings and actual order embodying this permission is not before me, but it is not disputed that the order of the lower appellate Court sufficiently accurately quotes it where it says:It was ordered that before filing a fresh suit the plaintiff should pay the costs of both the Courts.2. The present suit was filed on the 14th May 1926, without the costs of the previous litigation having been paid. On 28th August 1926, the defendant Sheoratan Singh in his written statement and in a...
Tag this Judgment!(Thakur) Ishri Singh Vs. Tejbir Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All689
1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff lambardar whose suit for arrears of revenue under Section 159 of the former Agra Tenancy Act, Act 2 of 1901, has been dismissed by both the lower Courts on the ground that the plaintiff had not proved that the amount of revenue which he paid on behalf of the defendant was paid from his own pocket. The plaintiff and defendant are full brothers and were members of a joint Hindu family up to the end of Fasli 1327, when a partition took place by a registered deed dated 14th April 1920. This deed provided that from that date the parties would be entirely separate and would realize their rents from their separate tenants and would pay their revenue separately. Kuras were prepared and the property was divided plot by plot. No provision was made in the deed for arrears of rent due before the partition which would be collected subsequent to the partition. Ishri Singh, the plaintiff, was the lambardar of the mahal in which he and his brother were the sol...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Singh and ors. Vs. the Kanyakubja Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.109
1. This appeal and Appeal No. 263 of 1926 arise out of two different suits which were tried together, for the sake of convenience, the parties to the two suits being practically the same.2. The suits related to money said to have been recoverable by the Kanyakubja Bank of India, Ltd., now gone into liquidation and represented by the Official Liquidator, Mr. Murli Manoher Dikshit. To these suits were made parties not only the principal debtor, Ram Saran Singh, but also his son, his brother and his nephews. The claim was based on the ground that Ram Saran Singh obtained the money to carry on the business of a certain firm in which the whole family were interested. The suits substantially succeeded, and the son and the relations of Ram Saran Singh have appealed.3. The appellants have not printed any evidence worth the name. The result is that the learned Counsel for the appellants is not in a position to lay the evidence before us on the basis of which the learned Judge decreed the suit i...
Tag this Judgment!Moola Vs. Bhuriya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All613; 118Ind.Cas.583
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff asked for the following reliefs:(a) That it may be declared that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Sahi Ram deceased, and that he is in possession as such of the estate of Sahi Ram aforesaid, laid at Rs. 1000.(b) That an injunction may be issued to the defendants restraining them from offering obstructions to the possession of the plaintiff laid at Rs. 20.2. One or two observations may be made about this relief before we proceed. The body of the plaint refers to the entire estate of Sahi Ram, and it is in respect of that estate that the plaintiff asks for a declaration that he is in possession. But on the other hand the plaint refers specifically to the occupancy lands of the deceased, and the inference is clear that the estate consisted only of an occupancy holding. The next point is that the relief is really two reliefs joined in one paragraph, and it is really a matter of drafting merely that the paragrap...
Tag this Judgment!Ghura Koer Vs. Bishun Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All814
1. This appeal is by one who was defendant 2 in the suit. It arises out of a claim for recovery of mortgage money by sale of two out of 15 properties originally mortgaged. The mortgage was a simple one and was executed on 6th January 1911 for a sum of Rs. 6,999-15-0. The appellant now represents the original mortgagor. In the course of time, subsequently to the execution of the mortgage-deed, out of the 15 properties mortgaged, which will be found detailed at p. 3 of our paper book, properties 1 to 9 were purchased by the mortgagees themselves. The properties 12 to 15 were purchased by one Zuber, from whom they were wrested, after a pre-emption suit, by one Khairunnissa. Mt. Khairunnissa brought a suit for redemption being suit No. 198 of 1918 in respect of the four villages purchased by her. To this suit, the present appellant was a party. In Khairunnissa's suit, an account was taken of what was the liability on a particular date fixed by the Judge for redemption of the several proper...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar and ors. Vs. Chunni Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All559; 117Ind.Cas.344
1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned Munsif of Mainpuri dated 4th July 1927, by which he accepted an award and directed that a decree be framed in terms of it. It appears from the applicants before us, the defendants in the suit and the plaintiff agreed to refer their differences to the arbitration of three gentlemen. The plaintiff nominated one man as his arbitrator. The defendants nominated one man as their arbitrator and the parties jointly nominated a third arbitrator, whom they called umpire. A reference was made and after a certain stage, Mr. Ram Sahai who had been nominated by the plaintiff absented himself. The plaintiff then went before the Court and stated that his arbitrator had left the locality, that there was no knowing when he was coming back and that he proposed that one Mr. Ganga Sahai should be appointed as his arbitrator. The learned Munsif ordered that the name of Mr. Ganga Sahai be substituted in the order of reference for Mr. Ram Sahai. He s...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Vs. Dhani Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All577; 117Ind.Cas.107
1. This is a second appeal by one who was the defendant in the suit. The parties to the suit, at one stage of it agreed that the learned Munsif before whom the suit was, should decide the case, after hearing certain documentary evidence and making an inspection of the locality. They agreed that they would accept the decision of the learned Munsif. On the case being decided by the Munsif, an appeal was filed by the defendant before the learned District Judge. The District Judge held that the parties had constituted the Munsif an arbitrator and no appeal lay from what was virtually an award. In this view, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal. In this second appeal, the view of the learned District Judge has been contested.2. We are of opinion that the view of the learned District Judge is correct and we dismiss this appeal. On the question of costs, we are of opinion, that the 1929 A/73 & 74 respondent should not have any. We have refused to hear the learned Counsel for the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »