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.
Reoti Lal and anr. Vs. Shiam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All66; 121Ind.Cas.690
1. On Mr. U.S. Bajpai's application for the admission of this appeal Dr. Katju was present, and though he had no locus standi to intervene, this Court premitted him to do so in order that this matter, which is one of extreme urgency, could be discussed by both parties. The application for admission is to set aside an order passed by Mr. Plowden, wherein he permitted the marriage of Ram Piari to take place tomorrow, 11th July. Dr. Katju's point is that from such an order there is no appeal. He called our attention to Section 47(i), Guardians and Wards Act (Act 8 of 1890) and he, having read that section, pointed out that it was only in respect of those matters specifically mentioned in Section 47 in which there was a right of appeal, and he said that a perusal of Section 47 would disclose that none of these subsections were applicable to the appeal before the Court. Our attention was drawn by Mr. U.S. Bajpai to Section 47(i), which refers back to Section 43, which states that an appeal ...
Sheo Nandan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Khalik and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All777; 118Ind.Cas.186
1. This is a second appeal on behalf of plaintiffs 1 and 2 against the decree of the lower appellate Court, allowing redemption of a deed of mortgage by plaintiff 1 only and not by plaintiff 2, and on payment of a sum of money amounting to Rs. 858-8-0. The main points In appeal are that the sum of money should only be Rs. 125, the original mortgage money, and that redemption ought also to be allowed to plaintiff 2. We may mention here that during the hearing of this appeal we express our willingness to remit an issue to the lower appellate Court for a finding in regard to whether the expenditure was such as came under Section 72 or Section 76, T.P. Act. But the learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the suggestion, and accordingly we proceed to dispose of the appeal by deciding the question under Order 41, Rule 24. The facts are as follows:2. There was a plot 28, area 2 bighas 8 biswas odd on which certain trees stood, which was mortgaged on 5th December 1892 to the predecessors o...
Sukhdarshan Prakash Vs. Ram Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All815
1. On 24th April 1921, a suit was instituted by Ram Das against Sukhdarshan Prakash, for recovery of certain sums of money. On 1st September, Ram Das obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from transferring his immovable property pending the decision of the suit. That interim injunction was served on the defendant on 3rd September 1926. He promptly disregarded it, treated it with contempt and on 8th October 1926, in plain definance of the order of the Court, executed a mortgage of part of his immovable property. A month later the temporary injunction was made absolute and a decree was obtained by Ram Das on 6th September 1927. On 20th December 1927, an application was made by the decree-holder bringing these circumstances to the notice of Mr. Bhagwan Das, who was then Assistant Sessions Judge at Meerut. The case was perfectly clear. It was one of contempt and the respondent had no possible excuse except that he was hard pressed which is no excuse in law at all for op...
Beni DIn and ors. Vs. Ram Naresh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All824; 121Ind.Cas.99
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession brought by the daughter's sons of Brij Behari claiming possession of Brij Behari's estate on the ground that his widow Mt. Sukhdei had accelerated the succession with the consent of the daughter Mt. Ram Kedari in favour of the present plaintiffs by means of a gift dated 13th June 1923 which related to the entire estate. The main defence to 'the suit was two-fold. In the first place it was pleaded that Brij Behari was joint with the other defendants Beni Din Ram Autar and others and in the second place that the effect of an arbitration award of 7th June 1918 and the proceedings following thereupon was to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining possession of the property during the lifetime of Mt. Sukhdei. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided both these points against the defendants.2. The question of separation was a pure question of fact and the learned Subordinate Judge has written an excellent judgmen...
Suraj Pal Singh Vs. Shib Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All843
1. This is an appeal by Raj Suraj Pal Singh of Awagarh from an order directing the discharge of Shib Lal, an insolvent.2. Shib Lal was adjudicated an insolvent in November 1925. The amount of the scheduled debts came to about Rs. 18,500, out of which the debts for which the insolvent was responsible to the Raja cane to about Rs. 8,500. The assets of the insolvent which were available to the Official Receiver consisted of a building which was sold by the Receiver for Rs. 80. The finding of the Court below is that the insolvent is not possessed of any other property. It appears that the appellant obtained his decree against the respondent some time in November 1921. The insolvent transferred certain properties belonging to him by certain alienations between 1921 and December 1924. The present appellant instituted the suit for the setting aside of some of these alienations on the ground that they were without consideration, that they were fictitious and the so-called alienations were mere...
Syed Muhammad YamIn Vs. Babu Ganesh Prasad Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-10-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.226
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale-deed was executed on the 20th of September, 1927, by one Muhammad Yusuf in favour of one Ganesh Singh, who was not a co-parcener in the mahal. Before the registration of the sale-deed, the draft sale-deed was taken by Muhammad Yusuf to the plaintiff, who happens to be a lawyer. He read the draft sale deed. He found there the name of Ganesh Singh, the proposed vendee. He did not assert his own right to purchase the property in his capacity as a co-sharer in preference to a stranger. There does not appear to have been any enmity between Yamin and Yusuf, and if Yamin had at once asserted his right of preemption, his brother most probably would have conveyed the property to him in preference to a stranger. We think that Yamin was in these circumstances a consenting party to the sale-deed, which was intended to be executed in favour of Ganesh Singh. The Court below has thrown out the plaintiff's suit on the grou...
In Re: Lachhman Prosad Babu Ram of Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930All48
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax, united Provinces, under Section 66(2), Income-tax Act of 1922.2. The case sent up for expression of opinion on the part of the High Court is fully stated in the 'statement of the case,' submitted to us and very briefly is as follows: The assessees, at whose instance the reference has been made, carry on business at Cawnpore, Bombay and Calcutta with headquarters at Cawnpore. Under Section 64, Sub-section (1), Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Officer of Cawnpore had the right and power of assessing the income-tax, because Cawnpore was within his jurisdiction. The Income-tax Officer of Cawnpore, on 22nd April 1927 issued a notice under Section 22(2), Income-tax Act, requiring the assessees to submit a return of their total income in the 'previous year.' The previous year in this case was from Dewali 1925 to Dewali of 1926, as the account year of the assessees commenced on the first day after the Dewali festival of a Hindi...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Chob Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All755; 118Ind.Cas.657
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff owns khewat 7 which consists of an isolated plot which is a resumed muafi. The property sold consists of plots in khewat 18 which also are resumed muafi lands. The learned Judge has found that these are petty proprietary interests and do not represent zamindari shares in the mahals.2. The plaintiff produced a wajib-ul-arz of 1872 which contains a record of custom. The lower appellate Court has gone into the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz and discussed its various clauses and then come to the conclusion that the entry in it did not relate to these muafi lands. He has further found that the plaintiff's case would fail on the terms of the wajib-ul-arz. As regards Section 12, Pre-emption Act, he has thought that the question did not arise in this case. He has accordingly dismissed the suit.3. In our opinion the judgment of the Court below is wrong on both the points, though the decree is right. Once the pl...
Bashir HusaIn Vs. Mohammad Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All810
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case clearly show that the suit, as framed by the plaintiff, was misconceived and that the civil Court was not competent to grant the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff came to the Court on the allegation that in mauza Inampur, mahal Safed, the plaintiff was the owner and sharer of 1 bigha, 5 biswas and 8 biswansis in khewat No. 9 of 3 bighas and 14 biswas, and defendants 1 to 3 were the cosharers in 10 biswas 9 biswansis and 12 kachwansis, and in khewat No. 25 of 2 bighas and 1 biswa of the same village the plaintiff was a co-sharer in 7 biswas and 12 biswansis and defendants 1 to 3 were the cosharers in 10 biswas 1 biswansi and 7 kachwansis. The plaintiff alleged that the cosharers were in possession of separate plots, that certain plots specified in the plaint were in the possession of the plaintiff and that the defendant had no right to realize the rent of the plaintiff's share, as each co-sharer realized rent from the tenants to ...
ShujauddIn Khan Vs. Mehdi Raza
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929All873; 118Ind.Cas.230
1. This is an appeal by a defendant lambardar against a decree of the lower appellate Court awarding the plaintiff-respondent Rs. 2,569-2-9 for the plaintiff's share of the profits under Section 164, Act 2 of 1901. The plaintiff sued for his share of profits for 1328, 1329 and 1330 Faslis. The plaintiff produced as sole witness the patwari. The patwari gave evidence that the total rent for these years was as follows: F 1328 Rs. 1,207-7-6 ' 1329 ' 3,576-6-2 ' 1330 ' 1,475-15-62. The figures given in the plaint for the rental for these years were considerably in excess of those stated by the patwari and were as follows: F 1328 Rs. 3,571 ' 1329 ' 3,620 ' 1330 ' 3,6203. The lower appellate Court has accepted the figures stated in the plaint as correct with the exception of a slight variation in regard to the rental assessed on khudkasht for which it accepted the statement of the patwari. In the result, therefore, the lower appellate Court accepted rentals of over Rs. 3,000 for each of the ...