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.
Kora Mal and anr. Vs. Raghubir Lonia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All861; 122Ind.Cas.766
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose decree for possession granted by the Court of first instance has been set aside by the lower appellate Court on the sole ground that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by Order 9, Rule 9, Civil P.C. The facts are as follows:2. There was a simple mortgage-deed executed on 6th October 1906, in favour of Ram Dehal, and it was executed by Raghubir on his own behalf and guardian of three minors, Sheojagat, Bharat and Har Lal. As interest was not paid in accordance with the mortgage-bond, Ram Dehal brought a suit No. 27 of 1911. and obtained a decree for possession of half the property. It was held that Raghubir was only entitled to mortgage the half which belonged to him. That decree was obtained in 1911 and possession was delivered to Ram Dehal in 1914, and Ram Dehal remained in possession until his death some time later. Subsequently defendants 4 to 6 Jainandan etc. who are the sons and heirs of Ram Dehal, brought suit No. 436 of 1923 f...
Municipal Board Vs. B. Sarkar Bahadur Johari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All870; 118Ind.Cas.713
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand by the lower appellate Court arising out of a suit for damages brought by the plaintiff against the Municipal Board of Allahabad. The Court of first instance framed three issues, the third one being one of limitation. It dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation only without deciding the other issues. The lower appellate Court has taken a contrary view and has held that the claim was not barred by limitation and has accordingly remanded the case.2. It appears that the plaintiff is the occupier of a house which has been assessed to a prescribed minimum water tax and his house was connected with the main pipe of the municipal system of water supply upto March 1926. On 31st March 1926 his house was disconnected. After that date the Board admittedly for a long time did not allow him to connect his house with the main. The plaintiff served a notice on the Board on 9th October 1926 but waited for some time before instituting his s...
Tirbeni Misir Vs. Babu Mangal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All889; 122Ind.Cas.683
Dalal, J.1. The facts and law have been carefully explained to the Court by Mr. Pandey and Mr. Ambika Prasad. The property in suit relates to a share in three shops and those only will be referred to in this judgment in reference to various transfers. Moti Lal along with the members of a joint Hindu family owned eight annas share in these shops as head of the family. Out of this property, four annas share he mortgaged to Mangal Chand on 2nd February 1927. Subsequently Tribeni Misir the plaintiff obtained a simple money decree against Moti Lal alone and purchased the eight annas share in execution of the decree. The sons of Moti Lal, however, were able by a suit to render the sale ineffective as regards two-thirds of the property so what Tirbeni Misir obtained ultimately was Moti Lal's two annas eight pies share in the shops. The litigation ended in 1921. After 1921 Mangal Chand sued for sale on his mortgage of 1917, and in that suit Tribeni Misir was a party defendant. Moti Lal and his...
Bhullan Mal Asa Ram Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All960; 122Ind.Cas.888
1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against concurring decrees of two lower Courts dismissing his suit for damages against the E.I. Ry. Co. and the Secy. of State for India in Council. The point which has been argued before us in appeal is a very short point of law. The lower appellate Court found in the paper-book on p. 16, line 16:From the evidence on the record and the circumstances and probabilities of the case, I am satisfied that plaintiff's son refused to take delivery of the goods in question because the Station Master was not prepared to reweigh the goods, as desired by plaintiff's son and not because the Station Master wanted plaintiff's son to sign the delivery book before showing the goods to the latter. A railway company is not bound by law either to re-weigh goods or certify shortage at the time of delivery to the consignee. Therefore, the refusal of a railway company to re-weigh goods before delivery does not justify a consignee in refusing to take delivery of the ...
Secy. of State Vs. Bhagwan Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All769
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council and arises out of a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur acting as the 'Court' within the meaning of Clause (d), Section 3, Land Acquisition Act, 1884.2. The plea in appeal is that the reference by the Collector was made on a belated application of the respondents and the reference should have been thrown out by the learned Subordinate Judge.3. The facts briefly are as follows: The award made by the Collector in the case bears the date 15th June 1923. It could not be traced, that at any rate is my reading of the judgment of the Court below and the learned Government Advocate has not been able to state the date when the award was actually filed in the office of the Collector. Notices were ordered to be issued, by the Collector, to the two owners on 30th October 1923. They were actually served on Bhagwan Prasad on 18th January 1924, and on Mt. Anandi Kunwar on 23rd January 1924. The owners appli...
Dip Chand Vs. Munni Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All879; 122Ind.Cas.680
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of certain zemindari share by cancellation of a sale-deed, dated 12th May 1917, executed by the plaintiff's mother during the plaintiff's minority. The plaintiff's case was that there was no necessity for the sale and that the sale was not binding on him.2. The defence to the suit was that the sale was for necessity and for the benefit of the minor and therefore, it was binding on him. It was further pleaded in defence that the plaintiff's age was 25 and not 21, as stated in the plaint, and that the suit was time barred.3. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 640, and both the Courts below agreed in holding that, out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs, 480 was for the benefit of the plaintiff and was binding on him and that the necessity for the remaining sum of Rs. 160 had not been proved by the vendee. On the question of limitation both the Courts below held that the suit...
Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Krishna Sunder Nath Kaviraj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All887; 122Ind.Cas.869
Sen, J.1. This is an application for civil revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act and arises under the following circumstances: A suit for arrears of rent in respect of a house was instituted in the Court of Small Causes of Muttra by the plaintiff Sri Gopal Ji Maharaj who is the idol of a Hindu temple situate at Bindraban in the district of Muttra. The suit was brought through one Swami Keshwanandji who claimed to be the manager of the shrine. The trial Court held that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff idol. It held, however, that Swami Keshwanandji did not in law represent the idol. The defendant is the lessee of the idol on behalf of one Naudin Chand Goshain who was the mutwalli of the plaintiff idol. Swami Keshwanandji claimed to be the manager of the plaintiff idol through one Mt. Basant Kumari who was not the mutwalli. On these grounds the suit was dismissed.2. The application for revision was heard by Ashworth, J. who referred the following issue to the trial...
Ramadhar and anr. Vs. Raj NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All908
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 22nd October 1908.2. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground, that it was time barred. Both the Courts below gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit.3. According to the terms of the mortgage-deed the stipulated time for payment of the principal and interest was three years and interest was payable half yearly and in case of default it was to be added to the principal and interest, at the agreed rate, was to be charged on that amount. The Courts below held that, in view of the terms of the bond, the cause of action for recovery of the mortgage debt accrued on default of the mortgagor to pay interest on the expiry of six months from the date of the mortgage-deed and as the plaintiffs did not put the mortgage into suit within a period of 12 years from that date, the suit was time barred. In so construing the mortgage deed in suit the Courts below placed reliance on a...
Rup Kishore Vs. Collector of Etah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All948
Pullan, J.1. This is an appeal by an auction-purchaser against an order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside a sale. The sale took place on 28th February 1927, and certain property was sold for Rs. 6,500. The purchaser was the decree-holder-It is alleged, and the lower Court has held, that the property is of a much greater value and this fact is conceded by the appellant. We have, however, to consider whether the low price was caused by a material irregularity in the proclamation or conduct of the sale. The first question raised is whether there was any legal proclamation of the sale for 28th February, and the second is whether supposing that the proclamation as made for 27th February can be taken to be a proclamation for the sale held on the 28th, that proclamation itself was irregular. I will take the second point first.2. The proclamation of sale for 27th February contains the ordinary details required by law under Rule 66, Order 21, Civil P.C., that is to say, there is a descript...
Lal Bahadur Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All914
1. This is an application for revision of Lal Bahadur Johri from an order passed by the District Magistrate of Budaun under S-514, Criminal P.C. This order was confirmed on appeal. It appears that on 14th April 1927, Lal Bahadur Johri against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued by the District Magistrate of Budaun appeared before a Magistrate of the First Class at Rai Bareilly and applied for bail. His application was granted by the Magistrate presumably under Section 85, Criminal P.C. upon Lal Bahadur Johri executing a personal recognizance for a sum of Rs. 3,000 for his attendance in the Court of the District Judge of Budaun within a certain time. In pursuance of the said order, Lal Bahadur Johri did not appear in the Court of the District Magistrate of Budaun and the result of it was that the bail bond which had been executed by Lal Bahadur Johri at Rai Bareilly on 14th April 1927, was declared to be forfeited to the Government. The learned District Magistrate took further proc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »