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.
B. Sheo Prasad Singh Vs. Muffassil Bank Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All580; 118Ind.Cas.590
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of proceedings in execution of a simple money decree obtained by the decree-holder under the following circumstances:2. On 6th April 1920, the appellant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the decree-holder for Rs. 6,000. The appellant was a member of a joint Hindu family with his nephew, and the property hypothecated belonged to the joint family. Accordingly, the nephew instituted a suit for setting aside the mortgage in favour of the decree-holder. The suit succeeded, and a decree was passed in favour of the nephew on 6th December 1926 declaring the mortgage-deed to be invalid. The decree-holder then instituted a suit for simple money decree, which he obtained on 31st October 1927 for a sum of Rs. 12,621-14-0. In execution of that decree he attached the interests of the judgment-debtor in the mortgaged property. That the interests of a member of a joint Hindu family in the joint property can be attached by the creditor admits of ...
Ram Dawan Shukul Vs. Ram Surat Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All589; 117Ind.Cas.345
1. This is a plaintiff s appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff is a member of a joint Hindu family with Raja Ram who is the head and with Jagat and Vishnu Nath, his nephews. Under the sale-deed in question part of the property was transferred by the vendor to Jagat and Vishnu Nath and another part to two other persons. The sale-deed was contested by the head of the joint family Raja Ram. The learned Judge has referred to further circumstantial evidence indicating that the relations between the appellant and the vendees were cordial and the appellant took an active part in other connected transactions. From all this he has inferred that the appellant consented to this transfer and is therefore estopped from claiming the right of pre-emption. His suit has been dismissed. The rival suit for pre-emption has however been decreed. Both the plaintiff and the rival pre-emptor were impleaded in each other's suit as pro forma defendan...
Dalle Singh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All599a
Boys, J.1. I do not think the order calling for security from Dalle Singh for a period of one year can be maintained, and that for more than one reason. The police put up against this man by way of evidence four dacoity cases in which he had been acquitted. As regards only one of these can the Judge state even, and states rightly, that it leaves 'some residum of suspicion against him.' There are two other cases in which he is said to have been suspected both rejected by the Judge. 'Suspicion' is worthless and inadmissible unless supported by good reasons and then it is the reasons and the facts on which the suspicion is based, and not the suspicion, to which only weight can be given. So far as there is any evidence justifying the order the Judge finds it in the evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, of whom he eliminates one, who give evidence of the accused's general bad character. Such evidence is, of course, admissible to prove the general repute of the accused, but its weight must...
Surajmal and anr. Vs. Shankar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All600; 117Ind.Cas.347
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. Before the sale took place a notice was sent by registered post to the plaintiffs, but the lower appellate Court has found that this was not actually served on them. The defendants appealed and on their behalf a ground was taken that the mere posting of a notice was quite sufficient and that service of it was immaterial. This contention cannot be accepted. Section 14 of the Act does not say that a notice is merely to be sent to all the persons having a right of pre-emption but prescribes that the cosharer proposing to sell may 'give notice by registered post to all such persons' which undoubtedly implies that the notice must be given to the persons concerned. The use of the word 'issue' in Section 15 is ambiguous, but reading the whole of that section, particularly the later portion of it which lays down that the right of pre-emption would not be extinguished unless such person within the period of one month of the ...
Ram Dulare Lal Vs. Chhangamal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All309; 117Ind.Cas.104
Mears, C.J.1. This is another application in which professional misconduct is alleged generally against local counsel at Farrukhabad, that is to say, the defendant having had a suit brought against him by a plaintiff, who is a legal practitioner, says that he could not secure the services of a local counsel even for writing a petition for adjournment and had to get it drawn up by a petition-writer and they have all refused to accept his case on one ground or the other. Apparently the valuation of the case is considerable, being Rs. 29,705-5. Chhangamal must adopt the same procedure, as I have indicated before that is to say, that he should write a letter to a local vakil expressing his readiness to pay him a fee, appropriate and proper, for the case. He should at the same time offer to furnish him with all the instructions necessary to defend the case and he should keep a copy of that letter. If the Vakil is not willing to accept the case and makes excuses of a dubious character a copy...
Tilak Singh Vs. Sheo Nandan Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All612; 118Ind.Cas.527
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff sued for recovery of possession of certain rights in a particular area of land on the basis of his purchase from one Bechu. Bechu had been given this land on lease by the zamindar in 1893. The transfer in favour of the plaintiff was made in 1923. The defence was that the interest of a thekedar is, subject to the terms of his lease, heritable, but not transferable, as laid down in Section 20(3), Tenancy Act of 1901. Both the subordinate Courts have held that the lease was an agricultural lease. The terms were read out to me in vernacular and they justify the opinion of the two subordinate Courts. The first ground of appeal here is that the lease having given transferable powers, the transfer of the lease ought to have been upheld. The point has been decided by this Court in Majid Husain v. Kurban Ali : AIR1926All412 . The interest of a permanent lessee of agricultural land, although declared to be transferable by the lease, cannot be transferred as such transfe...
Kundan Lal Vs. Manohar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All588; 117Ind.Cas.345
Dalal, J.1. I refrain from giving my opinion as to the meaning of the word 'Dassa' and the propriety of its use by Kundan Lal, as occasion may arise for a suit in the civil Court. All I have to examine is whether it would be proper to order further enquiry in the criminal Court. I am decidedly of the opinion that the time of the criminal Court should not further be wasted. Monohar Lal took his chance. The Magistrate held a careful enquiry and arrived at a certain conclusion. A Court of revision merely for the reason of disagreement with that conclusion is not entitled to order further enquiry. A further enquiry may be ordered only in cases where a Magistrate has not taken sufficient trouble or has come to a perverse decision. On the evidence on the record I am satisfied that the Magistrate tried the case with great care and patience and examined the evidence to the best of his ability. Even if he came to a wrong conclusion, a Court in revision has no jurisdiction to order further enqui...
Phul Chand Vs. Gobardhan Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All739
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption brought to pre-empt the property sold under a deed dated 29th September 1924 by Mahadeo to Phul Chand the defendant-appellant. The sale consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 12,201. The plaintiff alleged that he was a cosharer in the village and the defendant vendee was a stranger and that the true sale consideration was only Rs. 10,000. The suit was defended by the defendant on various grounds. In the first place it was denied that the plaintiff was a cosharer and it was pleaded that the alleged adoption set up by him was invalid. It was further pleaded that the defendant had become a cosharer in the mahal by virtue of a gift taken on 17th December 1924 and was entitled to defeat the claim. It was further pleaded that the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act was a bar to the present claim. The learned Subordinate Judge has found all the issues against the defendant and has decreed the claim, giving the plaintiff ...
Sobha Ram Gopal Rai Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All502; 117Ind.Cas.103
1. This is an appeal by the firm Sobha Ram-Gopal Rai against an order in execution objecting to the application of Tara Chand, respondent decree-holder of decree No. 343 of 1926 for setting off decree No. 579 of 1925, in which he was a judgment-debtor, against his larger decree No. 343. There were three decrees as follows:(1) 556 of 1924, Firm Sobha Ram-Gopal Rai v. Firm Ram Narain Johari Mal, (2) 579 of 1925, Johri Mal, son of Ram Narain and Banarsi Das, son of Johri Mal v. Firm Pat Ram Das, Ram Saran Das and Lallu Mal, (3) 343 of 1926, Pat Ram Das, Ram Saran Das v. Johri Mal, son of Ram Narain and Banarsi Das, son of Johri Mal.2. The objection of the appellant is that he had already attached decree No. 579 on his own decree, and therefore it cannot be set off now by the respondent. The question is whether Order 21, Rule 18 applies in the present execution case or not. No question of res judicata was argued before us, and the appeal has been argued solely on whether Order 21, Rule 18 ...
Jwala and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All575
Dalal, J.1. Eight men have been convicted of an offence under Section 301, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Durga by beating him with kicks and fists. There cannot be the slightest doubt that these eight men went to Durga's field and beat him. The motive appears to be their anger at Durga's cattle constantly grazing in the fields of other cultivators. The learned Judge of the lower Court has on the basis of the written statements of some of the appellants discovered another motive, that of the enmity of the zemindars against Durga. Such a deduction is entirely unfair to the appellants when no such enmity was put forward on behalf of the prosecution. The defence was that certain appellants were falsely implicated because they favoured certain zamindars. That is not a sufficient basis to jump to the conclusion that the zamindars had enmity against Durga and engineered the beating of Durga by their own partisans. Death was caused by the breaking of a large number of ribs through pressu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »