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.
Mata DIn Kandu Vs. Ram Lakhan Ahir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All87
1. This is an application in revision from an order of a Small Cause Court Judge. It appears that the plaintiff before the Small Cause Court obtained a decree for Rs. 533-13-0 ex parte against the defendant on 12th November 1927. On 12th April 1928, the defendant obtained knowledge of ahe decree. On 22nd April 1928, he applied to set aside the decree, and in recordance with the rules filed a security bond with two sureties. On 27th April 1928, Balgovind applied to withdraw his name as surety. On 30th April 1928, the defendant paid into Court a sum of Rs. 335 which be thought was a sufficient sum to represent the suretyship of Balgovind. On 21st July 1928, the decree-holder objected to the security bond on the ground that the other surety Gopi Tewari being a Hindu and having two sons, his suretyship was worth nothing. It is to be observed that the security given was a hypothecation bond by Gopi Tewari in respect of joint and ancestral property. The Small Cause Court Judge decided this m...
In Re: Muhhtar of Banares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All655
1. This case has been initiated against Babu Manni Lal, a mukhtar, practising in the criminal Courts at Banares on a reference by the District Magistrate of Benares under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act (Act 18 of 1879). Notice was duly served upon Babu Manni Lal to show cause why he should not be either suspended or disbarred for misconduct in the discharge of his professional duties. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Saila Nath Mukherji, the learned advocate for the mukhtar that the reference to this Court is not competent.2. Certain enquiries appear to have been made in the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class as regards the conduct of the mukhtar on the complaint of one Ambar Misra. He submitted a report to the District Magistrate and the latter officer has made this reference by his order dated 14th May 1929. Certain provisions contained in Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act have escaped the notice of the learned District Magistrate. That section provides tha...
Mt. Wahidan Vs. Mt. Aliman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All844; 118Ind.Cas.711
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed by the lower appellate Court and the defendant has come here in second appeal on the ground that the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. The plaintiff had brought an earlier suit for possession in 1926. In this suit various issues were framed and all of them were decided by the Munsif. The suit, however, was ultimately dismissed on the ground that there was no cause of action. It has been rightly pointed out by the lower appellate Court that the former suit ought not to have been dismissed but proceedings should have been taken by the Munsif under Order 7, Rule 11, which lays down an imperative injunction that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action.2. This is an important matter, because under Rule 13, it is laid down that the rejection of the plaint on any of the grounds hereinbefore mentioned shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in ...
Prakash NaraIn Vs. Ram Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All872
1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1 in a suit in which the lower appellate Court has granted to the plaintiff a decree declaring that his sale-deed of 11th December 1922, is a genuine document and that the house which he has purchased by that document from defendant 2 is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree of defendant 1 against defendant 2. The facts, as found by the lower appellate Court, are that on 8th August 1921, defendant 1 obtained this decree against defendant 2. In execution of that decree he attached the house in question. Subsequent to that attachment the judgment-debtor, defendant 2, executed a sale-deed in question in favour of the plaintiff. It is further found by the lower appellate Court that the sale consideration was only Rs. 100, and the value of the house at the date of the transfer was Rs. 200. It is also found that the judgment-debtor had left himself without any other property whatever. The Munsif dismissed the suit of the plaintif...
Baldeo Prasad and ors. Vs. Bhola Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All941; 121Ind.Cas.106
1. This is a second appeal against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of the mortgage money on two hypothecation bonds dated 27th March 1911 and 12th August 1911 Defendants represent the mortgagors. On the other the plaintiffs, although they are the descendants of the original mortgagees, only own five-ninths of the mortgagee rights. By a partition deed dated 10th September 1917 two mortgagees divided their mortgagee rights with their four brothers, who acquired by this partition four ninths of the mortgagee rights. The owners of these four-ninths were not parties to the suit as brought on 7th August 1923.2. The mortgage money in the first bond was due for payment on 27th March 1912, and the mortgage money in the second bond was due on 18th May 1912. On 3rd July 1924 the plaintiffs applied asking that the present owners of the remaining four-ninths of the mortgagee rights should be added as parties to the suit. Limit...
Lala Parmeshri Das Vs. Ram Sahai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.713a
Dalal, J.1. The only item with regard to which there is any substance in appeal is Item No. 12. As regards Items Nos. 10 and 11 it was objected that the plaintiff had no cause of action as those had already been taken into account in partition between the parties who are own brothers. The question will only be one of costs and the order of costs of the lower Appellate Court will have to be altered and this matter considered at the end of the judgment.2. Item No. 9 a gun, has been held to have been the property of the father of the parties. That is a finding of fact. As to decrees Nos. 3 to 6, some reference was made to what the lower Appellate Court said in his judgment as regards the realisation of those decreed. Those observations are not copied in the decree of the lower Appellate Court and do not afford grounds for appeal.3. Finally as to Item No. 12 the appeal must succeed. Under Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure no suit shall be maintained against any person claiming titl...
In Re: Mukhtar of Benares
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-18-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.712
1. This case has been initiated against Babu Manni Lal, a Mukhtar, practising in the Criminal Courts at Benares on a reference by the District Magistrate of Benares under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879). Notice was duly served upon Babu Manni Lal to show cause why he should not be either suspended or disbarred for misconduct in the discharge of his professional duties. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Saila Nath Mukerji, the learned Advocate for the Mukhtar that the reference to this Court is not competent.2. Certain enquiries appear to have been made in the Court of a Magistrate of the First Class as regards the conduct of the Mukhtar on the complaint of one Ambar Misra. He submitted a report to the District Magistrate and the latter officer has made this reference by his order dated the 14th of May, 1929. Certain provisions contained in Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act have escaped the notice of the learned District Magistrate. That se...
Ram Prasad Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All73
1. First Appeal No. 35 of 1928 and First Appeal No. 97 of 1928 are cross-appeals by the defendant and the plaintiff respectively and arise out of the same suit.2. It appears that one Ganeshi Lal had given authority to his wife to adopt a son and in pursuance of that authority she adopted Har Bilas and executed a deed of adoption on 5th May 1892. This Har Bilas subsequently adopted Ram Bahadur in 1902. For the purposes of this suit it has been admitted by the defendant-appellant that this adoption may be accepted as valid. In 1917 Har Bilas and his adopted son Raj Bahadur constituted a joint Hindu family. On 5th December 1917 Har Bilas executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Prasad, son of Lala Ballu Mal, the present appellant. This deed is printed on p. 37 of the paper-book and was for Rs. 34,000. Har Bilas described himself as the absolute owner in possession of the property transferred and also alleged that he had no partner or cosharer who might stand in the way of the transfer. But h...
Salig Ram Vs. Lachmi Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All622
Mears, C.J.1. Ramanand and Naurangi held two decrees against Abdur Rahman and Chhabraji Kuer in suits Nos. 144 and 38 of 1910. The decree-holders were in considerable financial difficulty about this time. They sold the decrees to Ram Charan defendant 1, who is the father of the plaintiffs on 31st August 1911. This assignment was clearly a cloak to defeat or delay creditors and was not intended to be a genuine sale for consideration. The decrees were put into execution and in July 1912 Ram Charan intimated that he had received the decretal amounts in their entirety and prayed that the execution cases be struck off in full satisfaction.2. Ramanand and Naurangi applied for bankruptcy on 8th October 1913. They were adjudicated insolvents on 26th August 1914.3. The Official Receiver applied to the learned District Judge in insolvency that the assignment of the decrees was a colourable transaction, that it was fictitious, was without consideration and was a mere device to defraud the credito...
Saroop Singh Vs. Narsingh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All846; 122Ind.Cas.679
Dalal, J.1. On 24th March 1927 during execution of a money decree obtained by the defendant an order was passed for the attachment of the property in suit. Two days after this order was passed the property was sold by a private sale by the judgment-debtor, the owner of the property, to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to have the attachment removed in the execution Court, so they instituted the present suit under C. 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., for a declaration that the property is not liable to be sold in execution of the defendant Sarup Singh's decree. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit on two grounds: (1) that the doctrine of lis pendens as enunciated in Section 52, T.P. Act, did not apply and (2) that the order of attachment did not give the judgment-debtor the benefit of the provisions of Section 64, Civil P.C.2. In execution proceedings of a money decree, no right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, and the provisions of Section 52, T.P. Act,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »