Allahabad Court May 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.
Jagmohan Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Khilawan Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All683
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the lower appellate Court dated 5th December 1927, by which the Court allowed an application made by the plaintiffs in the suit, who are the respondents before us, to withdraw the suit instituted by them with liberty to bring a fresh suit.2. The facts which led to that application are briefly these: The plaintiffs came to Court with the prayer that they might be declared to be the owners of certain plots by virtue of a certain ancient gift. In the plaint they said that they were paying a certain amount of money periodically to the zamindars but that they were paying the same as being their share of the revenue payable to the Government, and that they are paying the same to the Government through the zamindars. When the parties were examined by the Court for framing the issues, on 18th December 1926, one of the plaintiffs said: ''muzhir zamindar ko lagan deta tha.' The defendants to the suit, who are the applicants before us, we...
Natha Ram Vs. Ram Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All673
Pullan J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit were judgment-debtors in a mortgage decree. The property which was mortgaged was 3/4th biswas in certain khatas, and a decree for sale was passed against that share. By mistake in the sale proclamation the property was stated to be 1 1/4 biswas in accordance with the claim previously made by the mortgagee and successfully contested in the Court. In accordance with the sale proclamation a share of 1 1/4 biswas was sold and purchased by a third party. No objection was made at the time by the judgment-debtors, and they subsequently filed this suit The object of the suit is to recover that portion of the property which was sold in excess of the 3/4th biswas included in the mortgage. The plaintiffs have been successful in two Courts, and the auction-purchasers come before this Court in second appeal, alleging that the suit was barred by Order 21, Rule 92, Civil P.C. and that it was further barred by limitation. The cases on which the appellant relies ...
Abdul Hakim and anr. Vs. Mukarram Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All158
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision asking this Court to revise an order of the learned Munsiff of Bareilly, dated 15th July 1927, which has been affirmed on appeal, by the learned District Judge on 15th November 1927.2. The facts which have given rise to the suit and the present application are, briefly, as follows: The applicants before us were the two plaintiffs in the Court of first instance. They said that they had purchased a grove on 19th August 1918 and became the owner thereof, by the purchase. About three years prior to the institution of the suit, during the absence of the plaintiffs in Calcutta, the defendants began to misappropriate the fruits of the trees and continued to do so, till the date of the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore claimed a declaration of the title and Rs. 150 being the value of three years' produce of the trees. Later on, by amendment, they claimed possession, if it was found that the plaintiffs were out of possession.3. Of the two defendant...
Gajram Singh and anr. Vs. Balwant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All702
Niamatullah, J.1. Parties are cosharers in a certain mahal, neither of them being the lambardar. The plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for settlement of account under Section 165, Agra Tenancy Act 2 of 1901. They claimed profits to the extent of their share out of the entire rental of the mahal. The defendants contested their liability to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, and pleaded that the collections fell short by a considerable amount. The Courts below have awarded profits to the plaintiffs, as claimed by them, on the entire rental, making allowance for Government revenue and incidental charges. The defendants appeal.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there is an essential distinction between a suit against a lambardar under Section 164 and one for settlement of account against an ordinary cosharer who has made collections under Section 165 of the same Act. In the former case there is a statutory provision making...
Zafer Ali Vs. Kanti Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All896
Dalal, J.1. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court was misled by a slip made in a judgment of this Court. It is a Bench judgment, Kasumari Das v. Mahkhu : AIR1927All227 . The report is quite correct. In dictating the judgment it was stated by the Court that the suit was one for redemption when it was really one for sale. I sent for the record as it seemed somewhat strange that a Bench of two Judges should have decided that a suit for redemption was a suit for the recovery of a debt. Mr. Kaul, on behalf of the respondent, argued that in any way there is the opinion of this Court that a succession certificate is necessary before a decree can be passed in a suit for redemption. When there is an obvious error made in dictating the judgment it cannot be said that such is the opinion of this Court In the mind of the learned Judge the thought of a mortgage debt was present and not redemption as would appear by his quoting the case of Fateh Chand v. Mohammad Baksh [1894] 16 All. 259, a...
Chodhey Lal Murlidhar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1932All471
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, 1922, by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the United Provinces. The facts briefly are these. There is a family consisting of a father, two sons, the father's brother and the brother's sons. The father and his brother are Chokhey Lal and Murlidhar and there is a firm styled Chokhey Lal Murlidhar which deal in grain. Chokhey Lal has two adult sons, Kanhaiya Lal and Ram Ratan. Murlidhar's sons are minors. Kanhaiya Lal carries on a cloth shop and Ram Ratan carries on a grain business in another shop. The income-tax officer asked for a return of income from Chokhey Lal as the head of the family and he, for the first time, made a return in which the income from the business carried on by his sons was not entered. Chokhey Lal in reply to a question on the point put by the income-tax officer, said that his sons had been separate for several years and their business was separate. Chokhey Lal produced a document dated 27th M...
Asa Ram and anr. Vs. Karam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All586
1. This appeal raises a nice question of law. We have however no difficulty in deciding it. The first two defendants executed a simple money bond in favour of plaintiffs-appellants, in consideration of a debt owed by their father, but was one which had become time barred at the date of the execution of the bond in suit. The claim failed in the first Court, but succeeded in the lower appellate Court. Defendant 3, who was a minor brother of the other two defendants and who was not a party to the bond, was exempted from the claim. The learned Subordinate Judge, in decreeing the claim, directed that the amount of the decree should be realized from the 2/3rds share of the joint family property which belonged to the first two defendants.2. The plaintiffs have come up in second appeal and it is contended that there should have been a personal decree against first two defendants, as the executants of the bond.3. Reliance has been placed on Section 25, Contract Act. It is argued that defendants...
Zafar Ahsan and ors. Vs. Zubaida Khatun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All604; 121Ind.Cas.398
1. This is an appeal by four defendants in a suit for sale on a mortgage executed by one Mazhar Ahsan. Mazhar Ahsan, the mortgagor, married three ladies and appellant 1 is the son of Mazhar Ahsan by the eldest wife. The other three defendants are the children by the second wife and the plaintiff is Mazhar Ahsan's daughter by the third wife. The plaintiff's mother died in the year 1911. In order to pay off the dower debt due by Mazhar Ahsan to the mother of the plaintiff the mortgage-deed in suit dated 17th April 1914, was executed by Mazhar Ahsan in favour of the plaintiff. The deed, Ex. 1 at p. 45, sets out the consideration to be Rs. 3,500 which Mazhar Ahsan states was due by him to Zubaida Khatun, the mortgagee, which she had inherited partly from Mt. Hasan Bano her mother and partly from Mt. Zahida Khatun, the sister of the mortgagee. Mt. Zahida Khatun died after the death of her mother and before the execution of the mortgage-deed. The defence to the suit was every conceivable poi...
Chandu Mal Vs. Darbari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All592
1. The respondent, Darbari Lal, was assessed with income-tax to the amount of about Rs. 83. He also owed, it appears, a small amount of money on account of irrigation dues. Both the taxes were due for the year 1923. Certain immovable properties of his, namely four shops, were attached and sold to realise the two taxes. They were sold on 17th March 1924, and were purchased by the appellant before us, Lala Chand Lal alias Chandu Mal. Darbari Lal thereupon brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to have the sale set aside on the ground that the sale was brought about by means of fraud to which the appellant was a party. The suit succeeded in the Court of first instance and an appeal by the auction-purchaser, Lala Chanda Lal, was dismissed, but on a ground which will be presently stated. The auction-purchaser has now come up in second appeal, and his contention is that the ground on which the learned Judge has dismissed his appeal was untenable and the learned Judge should hav...
Murli Dhar Vs. Surja and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All699
1. The plaintiff zamindar came to Court on the revenue side desiring assessment of rent on a grove which had lost its character. The grove consisted of seven plots, 627 to 633, both inclusive. An excellent map exists on the record. Both the subordinate Courts held that all the plots should be taken together as one plot and on this consideration when 88 trees are still standing thereon the plot cannot be considered to have lost the character of a grove. It was overlooked by both the subordinate Courts that rent may be assessed even on a portion of a grove when that portion loses the character of a grove. This is but reasonable. If several plots of land are given for the planting of a grove without rent the grove-holder may dishonestly keep a larger number of trees only in one corner and cultivate the rest of the land without payment of rent arguing that the large number of trees on a portion of the grove were sufficient to give the land the character of a grove. This principle of assess...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »