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.
Koer Singh and ors. Vs. Pahalwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All864
1. This is the second appeal by the defendants against the decree of the lower appellate Court setting aside a decree of an Assistant Collector for the ejectment of the defendant-appellants as sub-tenants of certain plots. The plaintiffs were owners of a zemindari share in a mahal in which sir plots were situated, and these plots were originally the sir of the plaintiffs and were so recorded in F. 1332. For that year the defendants were entered as sub-tenants of 12 and 18 years. On 12th March 1913, there was a deed of mortgage by conditional sale executed by the plaintiffs of the whole of their zemindari share in this mahal in favour of the defendants. A preliminary decree was obtained by the defendants for foreclosure of that mortgage on 12th March 1922 and a final decree on 2nd December 1922 and, on 16th February 1923, the defendants obtained possession from the civil Court of the zemindari share. The plaintiffs claim that as a result of a transfer of their zemindari share the plaint...
B. Hirdey NaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All850
1. This application in revision is directed against an appellate order of the District Judge of Pilibhit, affirming an order of the learned Munsif of Pilibhit by which that officer imposed a fine of Rs. 50 on the applicant under Section 32, Civil P.C.2. The applicant was summoned as a witness in a civil suit by the plaintiff of that suit. The summons was duly served on him and he was required to attend the Court on 19th May 1927, but he failed to appear on that date. The plaintiff filed an application that, before the evidence is recorded, arguments be heard on a question of law that called for determination in the case. This application was granted and the Court decided the case on a preliminary point and no evidence was recorded.3. The learned Munsif called on the applicant to show cause why he should not be fined under Section 32, Civil P.C. The applicant filed a written statement embodying the reason for his failure to attend the Court on 19th May 1927, and prayed that he be excuse...
Kishun Mal Vs. Sakal Raj Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All878; 122Ind.Cas.760
Dalal, J.1. These are two suits brought against the same defendant Sakal Raj Mal, for damages on account of an alleged false prosecution. The defendant prosecuted the plaintiff in the two suits for an offence of theft. The charge brought by the defendant was that early in the morning of 27th October 1925, at 3 a.m. he got up and went out to feed his cattle, when he saw the plaintiff removing hay from his cattle shed. An alarm was raised, whereupon the plaintiff's friends arrived, and there was a lathi fight and the plaintiff was rescued. In fact some of the plaintiff's friends were badly injured and their story, according to a complaint subsequently lodged, was that there was a dispute for possession of a tree which ended in a lathi fight between the parties. The criminal Court held the theft story of the defendant to be false and acquitted the plaintiff, while the defendant was convicted for causing hurt to the plaintiff.2. The present suits for damages were decreed by the trial Court...
L. Bal Krishna and ors. Vs. Ram Kishun and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All957; 121Ind.Cas.97
Mukerji, J.1. The questions that we have to decide in this petition for revision are: (1) whether a revision is entertainable and (2) whether the order of the Court below was right:2. The facts of the case, briefly, are these: The plaintiffs represent two or three brothers and the respondents represent the third brother, Lal Man. A partition suit was instituted by Lal Man, in his lifetime, and it is now pending for final decision before His Majesty in Council. The question in that case is whether Lal Man had separated or had an interest still left in the family property, on the ground that he was still joint with his brothers and their descendants. The applicants who were the plaintiffs in the Court below, filed a second suit, being No. 32 of 1925, for recovery of certain moneys due from debtors, as a delay in recovery of the debts would entail a loss of the property. Among the defendants were not only the debtors but also the representatives of Lal Man the respondents. The debtors pai...
Rai Bahadur Chaudhri Raghuraj Singh Vs. Hargobind
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.3
Dalal, J.1. With all respect, I do not agree with the opinion of the learned Judge Mr. Bennet, at present a Judge of this Court. The interpretation desired is of Section 242(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. It is as follows: 'An appeal shall lie to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the First Class or of a Collector in any of the suits included in group A of the Fourth Schedule in which (a) the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds rupees two hundred.' The learned Judge is of opinion that the subject-matter refers to the subject-matter of the appeal. Ever since 1887 when the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887) was passed, jurisdiction of different Courts in appeal has been fixed in accordance with the subject-matter of the suit which has been made the criterion and not the subject-matter of the appeal. The word 'which' must refer to the nearer word 'suits' and not to the further word 'appeal'. If the word 'which' is made to refer to the a...
Ramji Lal Vs. Firm Ram Chand-dwarka Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.285
Dalal, J.1. Unfortunately the respondents are not represented. The plea of the auction-purchaser appears to be correct that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to set aside a sale of moveable property on the ground of irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale. It is laid down in Order XXI, Rule 78, of the Code of Civil Procedure that no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of moveable property shall vitiate the sale. The judgment-debtor is left to the recourse of a separate suit, I set aside the order of 6th April, last and direct that the sale in favour of the applicant-auction-purchaser Kamji Lal be confirmed. If there has been a subsequent sale of the same property, that sale shall be set aside and the property made over to Ramji Lal on receipt of the purchase money. The Firm of Ram Chand-Dwarka Das shall pay ex parte costs of this application....
Sheoji Kedar and anr. Vs. Bamanachari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-12-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.2
1. This is an appeal by the defendant from an order directing the remand of the suit under Order XLI, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The suit was founded on a mortgage, dated the 27th February, 1920, executed by Sheoji Viahwanath in favour of the plaintiff. Sheoji Vishwanath is dead. The suit was directed against Kedar, brother of the mortgagor, and Bachcha, son of Kedar. The plaintiff alleged that Kedar and Bachcha formed members of a joint family with the mortgagor, and that the money was borrowed for legal necessity and the consideration was utilised by the joint family. The suit was resisted on the ground that the mortgage was without consideration, that there was no legal necessity and that the mortgagor was not competent to alienate the property in the shape of a mortgage, because the property was endowed property and did not belong to the mortgagor. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, holding that, although consideration had passed, there was no legal nece...
Gadhu Singh and anr. Vs. Bansgopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All859
1. Second Appeal No. 1754 of 1927 arises out of a suit for pre-emption and is connected with Second Appeal No. 1755 of 1927. It appears that on 15th and 18th June 1925, two sale deeds were executed by the vendors in favour of the vendees and two separate suits for pre-emption were instituted on 15th June 1926, by the present plaintiffs. There were certain other rival suits for pre-emption with which we are not now concerned. While these suits were pending the vendee on 19th November 1926, obtained a deed of gift of a plot of land from a Hindu widow and the deed described them as the gurus of her and her deceased husband. A plea was raised on the strength of this deed of gift that the plaintiffs had ceased to have preference as against the vendees. On 24th February 1927, the present plaintiffs instituted a third suit to pre-empt this last mentioned transaction alleging it to be a sale.2. We may also mention that on 13th December 1926, a suit was instituted by the reversioners of the dec...
Mohammad Kamil and ors. Vs. Muhammad Salim and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All875
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of certain zamindari share in mahal 5 of mauza Hatwa, and in the alternative for recovery of possession of that share by redemption of a mortgage.2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but it was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the defendants had prescribed a title to the share in dispute by adverse possession for more than 12 years. There is no controversy about the facts. Jagram Singh and others owned a 4 pie and 14 chhataks share in mahal 2 and 3 pies 13 chhataks and 476 tiles in mahal 5, Hatwa. On 18th December 1909 they usufructuarily mortgaged their entire share in mahal 2 to defendant 1 and the predecessors-in-title of the other defendants for a sum of Rs. 107. Thereafter the mortgagees applied for mutation of names and, by mistake, their names were entered as mortgagees, not only as against the share of the mortgagors in mah...
Mt. Kaluiya Vs. Hira
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All950
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of a Magistrate of first class rejecting the petition of Mt. Kaluiya, which was made under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The date of the application is 2nd April 1929. It was directed against Hira, the husband of Mt. Kaluiya.2. The parties are Koris by caste. The marriage between the parties took place about ten years ago and a girl was born about three years ago as the fruit of this marriage.3. No aspersion has been cast upon the character of Mt. Kaluiya. She has been a faithful wife and 'has kept unsullied the bed of her lord.' It has also not been alleged or proved that she has been guilty of such minor offences in the performance of her household duties which were in any way calculated to cause annoyance to or impair the comfort of her husband.4. The husband, however, appears to have conceived an intense dislike for his wife. He has practically put her away and has brought into his keeping a chamar woman whom he has introduced ...