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.
Bhagwan Das Vs. Bibi Iqbal Sultan Banu Shahar Khurshed Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All885; 118Ind.Cas.715
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff who got a decree for damages to the extent of Rs. 200 from the Court of first instance which was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The suit was brought on the allegations that the house and the shop of the plaintiff have been enjoying the right of easement of support from the wall of the defendant's shop for more than 30 years, and that the defendant had altered the course of a deep drain bringing it close to the boundary of the plaintiff's land, with the result that the southern wall and the ground floor and the upper storey of the plaintiff's house along with a roof had fallen down. The facts as regards the cause of the damage is as follows:The learned Munsif has come to the conclusion that the damage caused to the plaintiff's house and shop was chiefly due to the excavation of the nala. I agree with the learned Munsif in this finding.2. But the lower appellate Court also came to the finding:'There is no definite evidence to show that ...
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All22a; 122Ind.Cas.894; 123Ind.Cas.683
1. Mr. Shushil Chandra Chaturvedi of Firozabad is already on the roll of vakils but is actually engaged in trade and has suspended his practice. He applies to be enrolled as an advocate of this High Court. The Bar Council recommends that his application may be refused but he should be allowed to apply afresh when he disassociates himself from the business.2. There can be no question that the High Court has power to refuse admission to any person at its discretion. This is so even if there are rules to the contrary, vide proviso to Section 9 of Act 38 of 1926. We think that weight should be attached to the recommendation of the Bar Council which represents the views of the legal profession. We accordingly refuse this application for the time being giving him liberty to revive his application after he has ceased to carry on trade.3. There is no order as to costs....
Abdul Rahman Vs. Jagannath Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All86; 118Ind.Cas.707
1. This is an appeal asking that an order of Mr. Hari Har Prasad of 25th April 1929, may be set aside. The position is this, that in November 1924, there was a family living in a village in the District of Jaunpur, the husband by name being Anup Kahar and his wife being Mt. Jhapatta. They had at that time undoubtedly a son named Behari, a daughter named Mt. Hinni, another named Mt. Gunni and a third named Mt. Hubraji. There is no evidence on which we can act that at that date there were any other members of this family. Anup Kahar died in November 1924 and thereupon within a very few days the widow and the daughters and the son migrated to Jaunpur and at that place, there was a sudden conversion of Mt. Jhapatta to Mahomedanism, she assuming the name of Mt. Ala Bandi. That name she has borne ever since. At the same time it is said that the three minor children whose names we have given were converted to Mahomedanism, Mt. Hinni's name being changed to Mt. Sakina, Mt. Gunni's name being c...
Kasim Abbas Vs. Hans Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All883; 122Ind.Cas.737
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal and arises out of a suit for possession over a portion of abadi plot 24 and for recovery of Rs. 60 as the price of two nib trees alleged to have been wrongfully cut by the defendants.2. Originally twelve persons were arrayed as defendants to the suit but nine of those defendants did not claim any interest in the plot in dispute and were exempted. The contest was between the plaintiff and defendants 10 to 12.3. The house of the contesting defendants is situate on abadi plot 18, which is to the west of plot 24. Both plots 18 and 24 adjoin each other.4. As regards the nib trees the trial Court held that only one tree was cut and thatthe tree that was out was standing on the west of No. 24 and belonged to Hans Ram,defendant. The trial Court on this finding dismissed the claim for recovery of the price of nib trees. The lower appellate Court has agreed with this finding of the trial Court. The only point argued before me with respect to the nib ...
Abdul Rashid Vs. Harish Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All940
Dalal, J.1. The argument is not clearly detailed in the grounds of the application for revision. The allegation of the Nagina Municipality was that Abdul Rashid had introduced a parcel into the municipality without payment of octroi duty and had obstructed the municipal peons in the discharge of their duties when they demanded an examination of the parcel for the purposes of levying octroi duty. Abdul Rashid was prosecuted under Section 155, Municipalities Act, for evasion of octroi duty and acquitted on the ground that the case was an old one and the complainant had not put in his appearance. The present prosecution is started for obstructing the municipal peons and the acquittal under Section 155 Municipalities Act, is put forward as a bar to the present prosecution under Section 403, Criminal P.C. The two offences, however, were quite distinct and committed against distinct persons. The evasion of octroi duty caused loss to the municipality, while the obstruction of the public serva...
Gopi Singh Vs. Kesho Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All459; 122Ind.Cas.768
Dalal, J.1. It is difficult to understand the facts of the case on the basis of the evidence on the record. There were two brothers Kesho Saran and Ram Baran. It is not necessary to note what Kesho Saran did with his sir land. He is at present in possession of his share. Ram Baran and his sons mortgaged the zamindari property first and then sold the equity of redemption. When the persons who purchased the equity of redemption redeemed the mortgage, the sons of Ram Baran along with Kesho Saran sued the subtenants in possession of the land for ejectment. There is considerable confusion as to whether Kesho Saran has any interest in the land in suit or not nor is it evident whether Ram Baran mortgaged the sir land. There is no enquiry made whether, after the mortgage, ex proprietary rights in half the sir land were extinguished or not. The decisions of both the subordinate Courts are exceedingly summary. The following issues are remitted to the lower appellate Court for decision after rece...
Mt. Kaunsilla and anr. Vs. Dip Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All812; 121Ind.Cas.272
Dalal, J.1. There was an instalment bond executed by the defendant for payment of the money borrowed by instalments with the option of recovering the whole amount and in case of default of payment of any instalment, interest was recoverable if the option was exercised. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was instituted more than three years after the first default. Four payments were alleged by the plaintiffs' creditor, but not believed by the Court on a denial by the defendant. In my opinion the trial Court has not paid proper attention to the form of the suit which is entirely for the recovery of certain instalments after waiving of the right which accrued to the plaintiffs to sue for the whole amount. The ruling in the case of Amolak Chand v. Baijnath [1913] 35 All. 455 will therefore not apply, because the suit here is not for the whole amount in exercise of the option. Under Article 75, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, where the benefit of the provision as to the recovery of...
Kazim HusaIn Vs. Ram Sarup and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All877
Young, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur. The facts found in the lower appellate Court are these: The plaintiff and the defendants are joint owners of the plot in suit. About two years before the action was brought by the plaintiff the defendants started to build a house on a part of the land within the zamindari which was parti or waste land. They proceeded with their building without any objection on the part of the plaintiff and spent some Rs. 1,300 upon it. When the building was almost completed the plaintiff brought an action for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the building and so to establish their joint possession. It is to be noted that the plaintiff was heavily indebted to the defendants and both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have found that the reason for the plaintiff's action was not so much his desire to enforce his right as joint owner but rather to bring pressure to bear upon the defendant...
Md. Shafiqullah Khan Vs. Md. Samiullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All943
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money by sale. It appears that one Inayatullah Khan was the former owner of the property in suit and made a simple mortgage in favour of Ahmad Said Khan for Rs. 6,000 on 12th June 1912. He died in 1916. The defendant Muhammad Shafiqullah Khan is admittedly his son. There were three other persons, Nuhullah, Hakimullah and Halimullah, defendants 1, 2 and 3 who asserted themselves to be the legitimate sons of Inayatullah Khan, but whose legitimacy had been denied by Shafiqullah Khan. The names of these four persons were entered in the revenue papers against the property left by Inayatullah.2. The mortgagee Ahmad Said Khan brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale. In 1919 Shafiqullah Khan paid one-fourth of the decretal amount and got a one-fourth share of the mortgaged property released from the mortgage.3. On 19th May 1920, defendants 1, 2 and 3 borrowed Rs. 1,000 on a promissory note f...
Mohammad Shafiq Ullah Khan Vs. Mohammad Sami Ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-19-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.101
Shah Mohammad Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money by sale. It appears that one Inayat Ullah Khan was the former owner of the property in suit and made a simple mortgage in favour of Ahmad Said Khan for Re. 6,000 on the 12th of June, 1912. He died in 19)6. The defendant, Muhammad Shafiq Ullah Khan, is admittedly his son. There were three other persons, Nuh Ullah, Hakim Ullah, and Halim Ullah defendants Nos. 1,2 and 3 who asserted themselves to be the legitimate sons of Inayat Ullah Khan but whose legitimacy had been denied by Shafiq Ullah Khan. The names of these four persons were entered in the revenue papers against the property left by Inayat Ullah.2. The mortgagee, Ahmad Said Khan, brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for sale. In 1919 Shafiq Ullah Khan paid one-fourth of the decretal amount and got a one-fourth share of the mortgaged property released from the mortgage.3. On the lath of May, 1920, the defendants No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »