Allahabad Court April 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.
Girwar Singh Vs. Shah Ram Chander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All586a; 117Ind.Cas.110
1. This is a defendant's application in revision purporting to have been made under Section 115, Civil P.C., and arises under the following circumstances:2. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, brought a suit against the applicant for recovery of a certain amount of money, which was below Rs. 200, by way of profits, the applicant being the lambardar of a village. The Assistant Collector, First Class, gave a decree for the small sum of Rs. 33 and odd. The plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, and that officer purported to set aside the order under appeal and remand the suit with the direction that accounts should be made up under certain directions given in the District Judge's judgment. The applicant then filed a second appeal; but in the course of the hearing of the appeal he took up the position that his petition of appeal might be treated as an application for revision. A preliminary objection is taken that this Court has no revisiona...
Chandrika Rai Vs. Srikant Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All597; 117Ind.Cas.98
1. This is an application by one Chandrika Rai against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur on 1st September 1927, directing the applicant to pay to the respondent a certain sum of money which was to be reduced, partially, in the case of his returning certain bullocks. It appears that the applicant's father Sukhdeo Rai was appointed the guardian of certain minors. Sukhdeo Rai having died, the applicant continued to be in possession of the minor's property. Sri Kanth Rai, the respondent was then appointed the guardian of the minors. At his instance or that of the Judge himself, the applicant was called upon to furnish an account of the minor's properties he had in his possession. He furnished an account without any objection. The accounts were scrutinized and a Commissioner was appointed. As the result of the Commissioner's investigation land report, the order complained of was made.2. The points that have been taken for revision are that the learned District Judge ...
Faqir Chand Vs. Lala Harkishun Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All599; 117Ind.Cas.111
1. The respondent brought a suit, in the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly, against the applicant, in which 17th January 1928 was fixed for fixing of issues. On that date the case was called, the plaintiff was found absent and the suit was dismissed for default. The same day, the plaintiff appeared with an application for restoration, but it appears that the application was actually filed the next day. The learned Munsif after issuing notice to the other side, restored the suit. The defendant has come up in revision, asking that this order restoring the suit should be set aside. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no revision lies. He relies on the Full Bench case Buddhoo Lal v. Mewa Ram A.I.R. 1921 All. In that case what was to be decided waswhere a Subordinate Court had merely decided the question of jurisdiction, whether an application in revision lay in the High Court or not.2. Three learned Judges as against two held that no applicat...
Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Ram Richtpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All621
1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover the money due on a simple mortgage, dated 11th May 1910, executed by Husain Khan and Nawab Khan in favour of Koore Mal and Tulshi Ram as security for a sum of Rs. 800. Defendants 1 to 8 are heirs of the mortgagors. Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are heirs of the mortgagees. Bhup Singh, original defendant 11, was a subsequent mortgagee, who died during the pendency of the suit and whose heirs are now upon the record as defendants 11 to 14. Defendant 15 Chiranji Lal, was a subsequent purchaser. The suit was contested by Bhup Singh and Chiranji Lal mainly on the ground that the mortgaged property situated in the town of Gulauthi is not liable to sale, and that Bhup Singh and Chiranji Lal had discharged a decree obtained on a prior mortgage, and therefore had priority to the extent of the amount paid by them in discharging the prior mortgage. The trial Court repelled the defendants' contentions and decreed the claim in full.2. The lower appellate Court gav...
Yudhishter Lal Vs. Fateh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All721
1. This is an application by one who was the decree-holder in the Court below for setting aside an order dated 8th December 1927, passed by the Second Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, in the exercise of our revisional power. The facts are these: The decree-holder brought about the sale of the judgment-debtors' property. The judgment-debtors applied for setting aside the sale. The application came up for hearing on 30th June 1927. On that date there was a default in the appearance of the judgment-debtors, and their application was dismissed for default, the sale being confirmed, automatically. Within a month of this date, namely, on 26th July 1927, the judgment-debtors applied for the restoration of their application and for a re-hearing of it. The learned Subordinate Judge has granted this application by the order under revision.2. The point that has been taken is that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass an order of restoration, although he professed to act under ...
Pokh Pal and anr. Vs. Lal Madho Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All302; 117Ind.Cas.107
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff Madho Ram while he was recorded as lambardar of a certain property paid a certain sum of money as revenue on citation being issued to him by the revenue authorities. At that time though recorded as lambardar he had sold his property to the defendants who were really liable to pay the revenue. He sued the defendants in the Court of Small Causes for recovery of the sum. The pleas were that such a suit was cognizable by a revenue Court, and, secondly, that payment was a voluntary payment and not recoverable under any section of the Contract Act No suit can lie in the revenue Court because Madho Ram is no longer lambardar or cosharer and cannot sue either under Section 159 or 160, Tenancy Act of 1901. The payment was not gratuitous, and, in my opinion, Madho Ram paid lawfally because his name continued in the village record as lambardar and he was, therefore, bound to make the payment to Government, It was the fault of the defendants that they did not get the plai...
Shiam Lal Vs. Moti Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All666; 118Ind.Cas.591
1. This application in revision must be allowed. The plaintiff Shyam Lal sued for recovery of possession over certain properties. The parties agreed that they would abide by a statement made by a certain gentleman, Khem Chand. Mr. Khem Chand made a statement to the effect that if defendant 1 paid the sum of Rs. 2,100 within two months of the date of his making the statement, which was 10th June 1927, the suit would stand dismissed, and if defendant 1 failed to pay, the suit would stand decreed. The learned Munsif before whom the case was, passed a decree in those terms. Defendant 1 on 10th August 1927, on which day, the two months' period expired, paid into Court the sum of Rs. 1,150. He, further, made an application to the Court for granting three months' further time to him, to pay up the balance. On 12th August 1927, the learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, refused that application. On the same date, defendant 1 deposited the balance of the money. On the deposit being made, t...
Chhotey Lal Vs. Bansi Dhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All699a
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of a suit on a puisne mortgage. The mortgagor had on 6th February 1903, mortgaged mauza Khajuri, the village with which we are concerned in this case, and other properties, to a person who had obtained a decree on the foot of his mortgage. The present judgment-debtor Chhote Lal, defendant 3 in the present suit, at an auction-sale purchased mauza Khajuri and subsequently paid off the full amount of the decree. The present suit was brought by one Bansidhar who had obtained a mortgage on 8th March 1911, which covered certain properties including amongst them mauza Khajuri, impleading, amongst others, Chhote Lal as defendant 3. Chhote Lal filed a written statement, but did not otherwise defend the suit. In the plaint, however, the existence of a charge in favour of Chhote Lal was recognized. In the decree in the present suit passed on 24th April 1922, there was no mention of Chhote Lal's charge, and the decree was finally upheld on 12th Feb...
Hoshiar Singh Vs. Udai Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All542; 117Ind.Cas.108
1. This is an application to revise a judgment passed by a Judge, Small Cause Court. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiff was one of several partners in a firm. Two of the members of the firm executed a promissory note in plaintiff's favour agreeing to pay him a certain sum of money as being the amount due to the plaintiff on taking partnership accounts. The plaintiff sued not only the executants of the promissory note but the other partners. The question before the Court below was whether the promissory note given by two of the five partners bound the other two defendant partners. The Court below has answered the question in the negative, and we are of opinion that the Court below was right.2. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff applicant had taken his stand on Sections 249, 251 and 263, Contract Act. They do not lay down that one of the partners, as between themselves, can bind another partner where the dealing is not with a third party. The authority which a partner holds on...
Tola Ram Vs. Mt. Govindi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All555; 118Ind.Cas.381
1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in to. The circumstances are that the plaintiff sued on the ground that he was entitled to possession of property as he was representative of one Narain Das deceased, who was the last male holder of the property in question. The Court of first instance found that the property was held by the widow of Sunder Lal, father of Narain Das, after the death of Narain Das, a separated Hindu and that Mt. Govindi the widow in question, had the right of a Hindu widow. Mt. Govindi had made a sale of the property in dispute to defendants 2 to 10. The plaintiff had challenged the validity of that transfer and the Court of first instance enquired into the question of legal necessity and other matters raised by the parties very fully. It found that the sale was not for legal necessity, and granted a declaration to plaintiff as reversioner that the sale was void beyond the lifetime of Mt. Govindi. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »