Allahabad Court June 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.
Baij Nath Vs. Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All831
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought to recover Rs. 672 on account of rent of a shop which had been let to the defendant by the plaintiff on 1st May 1924. No lease was executed but on 7th May 1924, a document styled a sarkhat was executed by the defendant. It provided that the defendant had taken the shop on rent for a period of two years and that, if the defendant vacated the shop before the expiry of the two years, he would be liable to pay the rent, water rate and house-tax in respect of the unexpired portion of the term for which the shop had been let. The defendant vacated the shop on 7th July 1925, and the plaintiff's claim was for rent, water rate and house tax for the unexpired period, viz., period beginning from 7th July 1925 to 30th April 1926.2. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit inter alia on the ground that the sarkhat in question is in fact a kabuliat and comes within the definition of 'lease' given in the Registration Act and the kabu...
Anrup Misir Vs. Ram Harakh Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All953; 122Ind.Cas.604
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration and possession. The parties to the present suit had jointly instituted a suit for pre-emption and a joint decree was passed in their favour by the trial Court. The pre-emption money was deposited in the name of the present defendant Ram Harakh Misir. The present plaintiff Anrup Misir does not appear to have attempted to deposit any money or to apply to the civil Court for execution of the decree or for delivery of the property to him. Ram Harakh Misir, however, applied for execution in his own favour alleging that the amount had been deposited by him alone. Execution was allowed and the possession was delivered to him of the entire pre-emption property. In spite of an objection raised by Anrup Misir in the revenue Court, Ram Harakh Misir succeeded in obtaining mutation of names. Anrup Misir then filed the present suit for a declaration that he had paid half the pre-emption money and asked for possession o...
Lala Baij Nath Vs. Lala Kundan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-07-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.671
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought to recover Rs. 672 on account of rent of a shop which had been let to the defendant by the plaintiff on the 1st of May, 1924. No lease was executed but on the 7th of May, 1924, a document styled a sarkhat was executed by the defendant. It provided that the defendant had taken the shop on rent for a period of two years and that, if the defendant vacated the shop before the expiry of the two years, he would be liable to pay the rent, water rate and house-tax in respect of the unexpired portion of the term for which the shop had been let. The defendant vacated the shop on the 7th of July, 1925, and the plaintiff's claim was for rent, water-rate and house-tax for the unexpired period, vis., period beginning from the 7th of July, 1925, to the 30th of April, 1926.2. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit inter alia on the ground that the sarkhat in question is in fact a kabuliyat and comes within the definition of 'lease' ...
Mt. Sahodra Vs. Badri Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All737; 122Ind.Cas.593
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for recovery of what has been called malikana allowance and interest payable by defendants 1 to 5 (contesting respondents in this Court), as the present holders of village Katia. The Court of first instance decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it. The claim has reference to an agreement alleged to have been entered into among five brothers, one of whom was Ragha Singh, plaintiff's deceased husband, at the partition of ancestral property which consisted of shares in several villages, including the village Katia which was allotted to another of the five brothers, namely Umrao Singh with an important reservation to be presently mentioned. Umrao's interests passed to defendants 1 to 5 by private purchase from his heirs. No formal deed of partition or agreement appears to have been drawn up, but the terms of it are clearly stated in the wajib-ul-arz of village Katia prepared ...
In the Goods Of: Balmukund Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All82
1. This is an application for the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate and effects of General Balmukund Dube, who died at Indore on 7th of September 1918. He left no will. The application is limited to two items of property consisting of 17 shares of Port Canning and Land Improvement Company and five shares in Messrs. Harvey & Sabapathy Company, Madras. (both with the Imperial Bank of Cawnpore) of the aggregate value of Rs. 15,450. General Balmukund Dube at the time of his death was a member of a joint Hindu family with his five sons including the applicant. The petition states that he left real property over which there is no dispute:But besides the real property the deceased held as part of the joint Hindu family property certain shares in two limited liability companies amounting to about Rs. 15,450 as exhibited in annexure-A.2. This application was made on 20th April 1929 and is supported by an affidavit of Mr. A.P. Dube in which it has been averred that the property se...
Mansa Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All750
Young, J.1. In this case the only question for the decision of this Court is the proper construction to be put on Rule 32 of the rule framed by the U.P. Government under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1914. The rule runs as follows:On the occurrence of any accident the driver and the person in charge of any motor vehicle concerned in the accident shall, if any person is injured,; render to such person all such assistance as may be reasonably necessary, and shall, if there be no police officer present, report the accident without delay at the nearest police station.2. There are two possible constructions of this rule, neither of which would offend against the rules of construction or of grammar. The first is that the words 'if any person is injured' govern the whole of the rest of the clause. The other construction possible is that on the occurrence of any accident, if there is no police officer present, the driver or person in charge of the motor vehicle shall report the accident without de...
Ram Rup Bhar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All813
Young, J.1. This an application in revision from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur, in which he confirmed the order against one Ram Rup Bhar under Section 110, Criminal P.C. Originally four men were charged under Section 110 before the Magistrate. The Magistrate acquitted one of the four. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted two more, and confirmed the sentence only as regards Ram Rup Bhar. There are many difficult points in this case, but I think that the application must be allowed on a preliminary point. The notice under Section 110 charges the four accused with:that they formed one gang and have been habitually committing theft and burglaries since 1927.2. This ground is clearly bad. In a decision of this High Court reported in Ram Prasad v. Emperor : AIR1925All250 , Mukerji, J., laid it down that where:a man may be by habit a robber and so long as he is not charged with a definite act of robbery, he may be bound over under Section 110, Criminal P.C. But when i...
In the Goods Of: Balmukand Dube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.357
1. This is an application for the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate and effects of General Balmukand Dube, who died at Indore on 7th of September, 1918. He left no Will, The application is limited to two items of property consisting of 17 shares of Port Canning and Land Improvement Company and five shares in Messrs. Harvey & Sabapathy Company, Madras, (both with the Imperial Bank of Cawnpore) of the aggregate value of Rs. 15,450. General Balmukand Dube, at the time of his death, was a member of a joint Hindu family with his five sons including the applicant. The petition states that he left real property over which there is no dispute:But besides the real property the deceased held as part of the joint Hindu family property certain shares in two limited liability Companies amounting to about Rs. 15,450 as exhibited in annexure-A.2. This application was made on 20th April, 1929, and is supported by an affidavit of Mr. A.P, Dube in which it has been averred that the proper...
Nathu Singh and anr. Vs. Girwar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All657; 122Ind.Cas.600
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of a Subordinate Judge dismissing their suit for a declaration which was asked for to the effect that a sale-deed, dated 25th April 1924, by defendant 2 to defendant 1, was void against the plaintiff-appellants and that the property which the said sale-deed purported to transfer might be attached and sold in execution of a decree of the appellants. The suit is really between rival decree-holders, the plaintiffs and defendant 1, Sardar Girwar Singh. The plaintiffs had a mortgage-decree No. 550 of 1912 against Ude Singh, defendant 2. The property which was mortgaged was sold on that decree but was insufficient to satisfy the decree; and on 4th September 1920, the plaintiffs obtained a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. On 18th April 1921, defendant 1, Risaldar Major Girwar Singh, who is remotely connected with defendant 2, obtained a simple money-decree No. 119 of 1921 against Ude Singh on the basis of two promissory-notes.2....
Sabir HusaIn Vs. Rirasat Ghaus and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All695
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiff-respondents, who are the heirs of one Sheikh Inayat. The latter executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of Mahabir Husain on 25th November 1893 in consideration of a sum of Rs. 12,000. Three villages, namely, Rethali which is now in question, Imadulmulk and Habibpur were mortgaged with possession, the usufruct to be appropriated by the mortgagee in lieu of interest. On the same date the mortgagee granted a lease of the mortgaged villages to the mortgagor at an annual rent of Rs. 1080. Rent fell in arrears, which were assigned by the mortgagee to one Nasair Husain, who obtained a decree in respect thereof on 1st March 1899 for recovery of Rs. 497-10-4. In execution of that decree village Rethali was attached and sold on 20th April 1901. One Sabir Ali was declared to be the purchaser. He sold his rights to Sabir Husain, defendant 1, appellant, son of the mortgagee, on 6th October 1903.2. The original...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›