Allahabad Court July 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.
Secy. of State Vs. B. Harbans Prasad Vaish
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All848; 122Ind.Cas.669
1. In this revision the opposite party is unrepresented and the learned Government Advocate who appears for the petitioner had to discharge the difficult duty of representing both sides of the case and in our opinion he has done that, as was expected of him, admirably. It appears that the opposite party had consigned to himself certain amount of jaggery from a railway station called Belharghat on the O.R. section of the E.I. Ry. to a station called Karvi situated on the G.I.P. Ry. The goods had to travel over the O.R.R. and E.I. sections of the E.I. Ry, and the G.I.P. Ry. Over the G.I.P. Ry, and the E.I. section of the E.I. Ry. a certain rate known as 'first class rate' was charged. Over the O.R. section of the E.I. Ry. a certain rate known as (C/F) was charged. It appears that under the rules of the Railway, first class rates should have been charged over the O.R. section also. The (C/F) rate is reserved for Messrs. Carew and Co., apparently because they are a large customer of the ra...
Ram Saran Das Vs. Bhagwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.673
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money based on a deed which was originally a mortgage-deed and not for the enforcement of any security. Bhagwan Sing defendant 1 and his two brothers who were minors at the time executed a mortgage-deed on 17th January 1918 for Rs. 5,000 in favour of the plaintiff. A suit was instituted by the minor brothers of Bhagwan Singh for a declaration that the deed was not binding on them because they were minors and also that it was not binding on the family because it had been executed without any legal necessity and that the deed was tainted with the immorality of Bhagwan Singh. That suit doubtless was a representative suit brought in the interest of the whole family. The Court held that the debt did not create any charge on the family property because there was no legal or family necessity. As a matter of fact it found that Bhagwan Singh was a licentious man and was leading an immoral life and wasting the family property....
Abdus Samad Vs. Abdur Rauf and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All780; 118Ind.Cas.229
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. It is undoubtedly a curious case which the lower appellate Court describes as a sort of a Chinese puzzle.2. The vendor is the son of the plaintiff's father whom the plaintiff alleges to be an illegitimate son. The vendor claims to be the legitimate son and further claims that he has got the property under a gift from his father. The plaintiff did not admit these allegations but asserted in the plaint that the vendor was not the owner of the half share in the property transferred which also belonged to the plaintiff, but having stated that, he went cm to state that with a view to avoid the dispute ho was prepared to sue for pre-emption in respect of the property sold. The statement of his counsel was also taken down and it was made clear on his behalf that although for other purposes he was not prepared to admit that the vendor had title he would admit his title for the purposes of the present suit and would not assert h...
(Babu) Ram Dubey and anr. Vs. Har NaraIn Dubey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All799a
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must succeed. The facts briefly are these. One Jagannath Dube mortgaged a certain piece of land which is now represented by plot 99, in 1862. He sold the land to the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiffs, the appellants before me, in 1867. The purchasers instituted a suit for redemption and, by a compromise, succeeded in the suit. They got possession not only over plot 99 but over an additional piece of land, which is now recorded as plot 100/1. This was in 1887. It has been found on an issue being remanded that the plot 100/1 did belong to Jagan Dube. Evidently the mortgagees had taken possession of that plot under the colour of their mortgage. When the redemption took place, the mortgagees handed over, as they were bound to do, not-only plot 99 but also plot 100/1. Since 1887, it has been found, the plaintiffs have been in possession not only over plot 99 but also over plot 100/1. The respondents who now represent the estate of Jagannath Dube, succe...
Babu Ram Dubey and anr. Vs. Har NaraIn Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.110
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must succeed.2. The facts briefly are these. One Jagannath Dube mortgaged a certain piece of land which is now represented by plot No. 99, in 1862. He bold the land to the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiffs, the appellants before me, in 1867. The purchasers instituted a suit for redemption and, by a compromise, succeeded in the suit. They got possession not only over plot No. 99 but over an additional piece of land, which is now recorded as Plot No. 100-1. This was in 1887. It has been found on an issue being remanded that the plot No. 100 I did belong to Jagan Dube. Evidently the mortgagees had taken possession of that plot under the colour of their mortgage. When the redemption took place, the mortgagees handed over, as they were bound to do, not only plot No. 99 but also plot No. 100-1. Since 1887, it has been found, the plaintiffs have been in possession not only over Plot No. 99 but also over plot No. 100-1. The respondents who now represent t...
Sri Murat Ram Janki Birajman Mandir Vs. Gorey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-02-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.233
1. This is a suit for preemption brought on behalf of an idol in respect of a sale which took place in Bundelkhand. In the first Court no objection was taken that the suit was not maintainable and the claim was decreed. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the objection but has disallowed the defendants their costs because the point had not been taken in the first Court. In our opinion such a question was purely one of law and it was open to the lower Court to take the point and dismiss the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. The plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a member of an agricultural tribe of Bundelkhand. It further follows that under Section 7 of the Agra Pre-emption Act he could not have a right of pre-emption conferred upon him under the Act if he is not entitled to purchase the property under the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act of 1903. The alienor in this case was a member of an agricultural tribe, and the plaintiff was not entitled...
Babu Ram Vs. Jograj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All76; 118Ind.Cas.375
1. The finding of the lower appellate Court on the issue remitted by our order of remand, dated 11th February 1929, is that the interest stipulated for in the mortgage deed sued on by the appellant, namely, Rs. 2-12-0 per cent. per month compoundable every half year, is not excessive and unfair as between the parties. It is based on certified copies of two mortgage deeds produced before the lower appellate Court by the appellant. No other evidence of any kind, oral or documentary, was adduced by either party. We are unable to accept the finding, inasmuch as, the evidence, on which it is based, is wholly inadmissible. The original mortgage deeds have not been accounted for, nor has the execution of any of them been proved by anything in the nature of formal evidence. The respondents did not enter appearance before the lower appellate Court, and the appeal before us has been heard ex parte. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the genuineness of the deeds is admitted by him. The circums...
Mt. Dulari Vs. Edward thelwal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All761a; 122Ind.Cas.664
Dalal, J.1. I think that both the Subordinate Courts have gone wrong on the question of res judicata. I have refused to entertain grounds of appeal other than the first because they were abandoned in the Court of first appeal, and whether they be grounds of law or fact, once they are abandoned in the first Court they could not be raised in the Court of second appeal. There were three brothers Edward, Richard and John. Edward is the plaintiff of this suit and John is defendant; Richard is dead, and the defendant Mt. Dulari is his widow. The father of these sons owned 200 bighas of cultivation in a certain village along with other property and bequeathed them to Richard for his life with reversion to Edward.2. On 8th February 1922, subsequent to the father's death and after the will came into operation Edward executed a deed of release in favour of Richard of this area of land. Richard then considering himself to be the full owner of this land executed a deed of gift thereof bequeathing ...