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.
Beni Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All608; 117Ind.Cas.346
Dalal, J.1. These proceedings must be quashed. On 22nd September 1928 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of some place not noted issued notice to Beni Singh as follows:you are by habit extortionist and so desperate and dangerous as to make you being at large hazardous to the community. I call upon you to show cause why you should not be ordered under Section 110(f), Criminal P.C.2. to execute a bond with sureties. The order is wrongly worded. There is no mention in Clause (f) of an 'extortionist.' Extortionist is mentioned in Clause (d) and not in Clause (f). Another mistake in the notice is that what the section desires to guard against is the freedom of a dangerous man without security and not freedom entirely. To judge by the notice one would think that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was determined to send Beni Singh to prison contrary to law. There can be no hazard to the community under the present circumstances, because Beni Singh is not at large without security. A Magistrate of Agra ...
Lala Bihari Lal Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.92
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of the mortgage-money due upon a mortgage-deed executed on the 20th July, 1914, as security for the sum of Rs. 2,000 advanced by the plaintiff to one Wahabuddin. In the mortgage-deed itself the interest agreed upon between the parties was stated to be 1 per cent. per mensem, compoundable yearly.2. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the Court below was right in decreeing only simple interest at the rate of 1 per cent. per mensem, in contravention of the terms of the mortgage deed.3. In our opinion the Court below was clearly wrong in admitting evidence of an oral agreement modifying the terms of the written contract between the parties. The defendants' case was that, as a matter of fact, the contract between the parties relating to interest was that only simple interest should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem, but in the bond it was entered that the interest should be compoundable annually, and this ...
Sundar Kunwar Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All623; 117Ind.Cas.103
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage. The only question before us is whether the payment of money by the mortgagee to the mortgagor for the purpose of the litigation was binding on the family and it was for the benefit of the family. It has been urged by the learned advocate for the appellant that as the mortgagor had instituted a suit for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow was not binding on the plaintiffs in that suit as collaterals the loan was such that the joint family property was liable to repay as they were to be benefited by the transaction. The suit was a suit by certain members of a joint family for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow was not binding on them. It was really to enforce a personal right of the individual members that the suit was brought and even if the suit had been decreed, and the widow had died, only one or two particular members of the family would succeed to the estate of the widow. A loan, theref...
Mukat Nath and ors. Vs. Shyam Sundar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All659; 117Ind.Cas.341
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit brought by three sons of Lallan Lal who along with two of his nephews executed a sale-deed on 9th February 1917, for Rs. 12,500 purporting to transfer two annas share in village Parsauni in the district of Gorakhpur along with a mango tree and one dhur of land in the city of Gorakhpur. This document was presented for registration on 17th February 1917, at the office of the Sub-Registrar of Gorakhpur and inasmuch as on the face of it the deed covered property situated within his jurisdiction he registered it. The plaintiffs claimed that the transfer was without legal necessity and being of ancestral joint family property was not binding on the family. They further alleged that the sale of the mango tree and one dhur of land was wholly fictitious and was never intended to be operative and accordingly the Sub-Registrar of Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to register the document and the document does not effect a valid transfer. The claim ...
Jai Jai Ram and ors. Vs. Janki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All756; 118Ind.Cas.380
1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of the Allahabad Division under Section 267, Act 3 of 1926 on a question of jurisdiction. The suit in question was brought by the plaintiffs who claimed to be exproprietary tenants of a holding, and they sued the defendants for ejectment under Section 58, Agra Tenancy Act, 2 of 1901, alleging that the defendants were their sub-tenants. The defendants claimed to hold as khudkasht and not as sub-tenants. The Assistant Collector decided that the defendants held the land as khudkasht and not as sub-tenants of the plaintiffs, and he dismissed the suit on these grounds. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against this order in the Court of the District Judge of Cawnpore. The respondents objected that an appeal did not lie to the District Judge The District Judge held that under Section 271, Expln. 2, Act 3 of 1926, a question of proprietary right did not include the question whether land in the actual possession of a proprietor thereof was held by such p...
Mehdi Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Chunni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All834
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a security bond dated 11th July 1907, executed by the defendant-appellants. It appears that Mt. Faiz-un-nissa obtained a decree against Mt. Hanif-un-nissa from the High Court in appeal arising out of suit No. 37 of 1903. The decree was for about Rs. 63,000. Mt. Faiz-un-nissa sold her decree to Bansi Dhar, the father of the present plaintiffs for Rs. 40,000 Prior to these proceedings Mehdi Ali Khan and Abdullah Khan the appellants held a decree in suit No. 20 of 1902 for over Rs. 11,500 against Mt. Faiz un-nissa. In execution of their decree they attached the decree held by Mt. Faiz-un-nissa against Mt. Hanif-un-nissa. This sale took place after the attachment and therefore all claims under it were subject to that attachment.2. The attaching creditors sought to execute the decree but the Court ordered that the decree should be executed by Bansi Dhar although when the sale proceeds are realised the...
Babu Nandan Mallah Vs. Muhammad Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.588
1. This is a reference from the City Munsif of Jaunpur en the question of whether a certain suit for possession of a fixed-rate holding lay within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or of the Revenue Court. The plaintiff sued for possession and compensation for wrongful dispossession by the defendant whom he alleged was a trespasser. The defendant pleaded that he was a tenant of a half share in this holding, and had been in possession as tenant paying rental for that half share to the zemindar, and further pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The suit, therefore, is one between rival claimants to a tenancy. Under the former Tenancy Act II of 1901, s 79 was a remedy for a tenant, who was ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act by his landholder. No provision in that Act existed for a suit between rival tenants, and accordingly such suits lay within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In the present Tenancy Act III of 1926, the corresponding Sec...
Sahdeo Ram and anr. Vs. Salig Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All543; 117Ind.Cas.105
Dalal, J.1. It is clear to me that an appeal did lie to the lower appellate Court and a second appeal here. Revision No. 240 of 1928 to this Court is, therefore, dismissed. As regards the second appeal, the view taken by the lower appellate Court is correct, but, in my opinion, that Court ought to have circumscribed the remand to the trial Court. 17th January 1928 was the date fixed for the hearing in the trial Court in a case in which the summons had been issued for the final disposal of the suit. The plaintiff was present and applied for adjournment, whereupon the Court passed a conditional order of adjournment on the plaintiff depositing Rs. 20 as costs to be paid to the opposite party. Costs were not paid up to 30th January 1928, whereupon the Court dismissed the suit for want of prosecution. The Court had no jurisdiction to do so. Under Order 17, Rule 2, Civil P.C., such action could be taken only where on any date on which the hearing of the suit is adjourned the parties, or any ...
Md. Inayat Ali Khan Vs. Fazal-ul-rahman Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All367; 122Ind.Cas.891
Mears, C.J.1. This is an application for the transfer of a case on the very singular ground that local counsel refuse to carry out the obligations which, by their profession, they are bound to do. Quite recently a similar complaint was made by a member of the public, and I then pointed out that the refusal of a lawyer to take up a brief for a member of the public, simply and solely on the ground that he would be appearing against a brother practitioner who was the litigating party on the other side, is professional misconduct; that is, it is a breach of the duty which the acceptance of the status of an advocate demands from every man who becomes an advocate. There is a definite and well recognized rule, which, however, does not seem to be understood in this country, that a lawyer must take up a case for any member of the public if:1. A fair and proper fee is tendered to him.2. Adequate instructions are given.3. The case is of a class which the lawyer is accustomed to do.2. That is the ...
(Ojha) Gurdial Singh Vs. Arjun Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All551a; 118Ind.Cas.527
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale deed was executed on 8th January 1923 and a suit for pre-emption was instituted on 7th July 1924. At first an ex parte decree was passed against the defendants vendees on 31st July 1924. Subsequently an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., was presented because there was no personal service on the defendants. The Court was satisfied that good cause had been shown and the ex parte decree was set aside, and the suit was restored on 10th January 1925. After that on 28th April 1925 the defendants obtained a gift of a small share in the same village which placed them on the same footing as the plaintiff. The Court of first instance decreed the suit on 14th December 1925 but the appellate Court has dismissed it. The lower appellate Court has held that by virtue of this gift the defendants were entitled to defeat the plaintiff's suit altogether.2. It has now been he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »