Allahabad Court January 1930 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.
Kundan Lal-ram Chander Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All525
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, and it arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,251-4-6, principal, and Rs. 337-8-0, interest, in connexion with a certain transaction relating to the purchase of wheat which was entered into between the parties.2. The plaintiff is a firm carrying on business at Binki, in the district of Fatehpur under the designation of 'Kundan Lal Ram Chander.' The defendants are the proprietors of the firm Lachmi Narain Shankar Lal, located at the same station. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased 500 tons of wheat from a Bombay firm, named Ram Kishen Das Chiranji Lal, that the firm of the defendants purchased from the plaintiff 50 tons out of these 500 tons of wheat and that delivery was agreed upon on 21st May 1923. The defendants refused to take delivery because there was a fall in the price of wheat in the market. The plaintiff had to pay Rs. 1,251-4-6 to the Bombay firm on account of the defendants. Hence the suit.3. The defendant firm cons...
Roopji and Sons Vs. Dyer Meaken and Co., Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All545
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal is directed against a decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Meerut in a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,750 on a contract of brokerage.2. The plaintiffs are a firm of general merchants, auctioneers and commission agents who carry on their business at Meerut through Mr. Roop Ram, their managing partner. The defendants are a registered company with their Head Office at Solon, and owned a bungalow No. 22 known as 'the Belvedere' situate on the Ordinance Row, near the Mall in Meerut Cantonments. The plaintiffs, having come to know that the defendants intended to sell the aforesaid house, offered their services to the defendants to find a purchaser. The defendants accepted the offer and agreed to pay the plaintiffs a commission or brokerage at the rate of 5 per cent. Originally the defendants had fixed the price at Rs. 30.000, free of all charges, but the price was raised from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 35,000 at the suggestion of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs ...
Mt. Phool Kuer and ors. Vs. Rewari Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All609
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the defendants from an order of remand by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs sued for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage and mesne profits and the Court of first instance decreed redemption but dismissed the suit for mesne profits. The lower appellate Court has granted the claim for mesne profits and remanded the case to the Court of first instance for the determination of the amount of damages payable to the plaintiffs from Jait 1925 to Jait 1928. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in any case the claim for those three years, i.e., up to Jait 1928, is in excess of the claim in the plaint. The plaint was filed on 25th May 1927 and the claim for mesne profits therefore would only be put to Jait 1927 and not up to Jait 1928.2. The main question before us is whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits in view of the fact that when the plaintiff made his deposit under Section 83, T.P. Act, no formal orde...
Mahant Shanta Nand Gir Vs. Mahant Babudeva Nand Gir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.477
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ.1. One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Cou...
Baqridee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All495
Dalal, J.1. The main point desired to be made out for this transfer was that the Magistrate hearing the case acted in conflict with the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P.C. After the examination and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses a charge was framed and the Magistrate for reasons recorded in writing required the accused to state forthwith whether they would cross-examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution. The counsel did not desire to do so. The Magistrate said that counsel would have an opportunity of cross-examining then or never. It is suggested in this Court that the provisions of Section 256, Criminal P.C., imply that the question as to re-examination should not be put to an accused person until the next date of hearing. There is a very good answer to this argument given by one of the most experienced Judges of this Court. The learned Judge observed in the case of Mula v. Sheoraj Singh [1911] 8 A.L.J. 707:The word 're-call' is very si...
Ram Dass and anr. Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All587
Boys, J.1. This case is of considerable importance both to Government and owners or licensees of property in cantonment areas, as in many eases concerning rights in property in cantonment or civil station areas the documentary evidence as to the nature of the rights of the parties concerned is very scanty. Within the limits of the present bazaar area of Meerut Cantonment, there is a plot of land which has been known since 1870 as 'Ehata Mandi.' Along portions of its sides are a number of shops which together with some boundary walls make the area practically into an enclosure with open gate-ways. The plaintiffs are admittedly the owners of the shops and receive rents from their tenants. The cantonment authorities, in the two or three years immediately preceding the institution of this suit, had commenced letting out portions of the open space in the centre of the enclosure to various persons. The leases for these areas they auctioned and in view of the circumscribed nature of the space...
Balwant Singh Vs. Collector of Saharanpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All602
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of properties in lists A, B and C of the plaint and for a declaration of title as regards the properties in lists 0 to G. It appears that the plaintiff succeeded to what is called Landhaura estate in 1913, and in 1916, 1917 and 1918 he executed deeds of gifts and exchange in favour of his wife relating to properties A, B and C which he now says were fictitious transactions, the title never having passed to his wife. The bulk of the property in list C was acquired at public auction by a sale which the plaintiff alleged was benami. The property in list D was acquired by a pre-emption suit, and those in E, F and C under private deeds. All these were alleged by the plaintiff to belong to him and not to his wife. In 1923 the plaintiff himself applied that his estate should be taken by the Court of Wards under its own superintendence, and in his declaration expressly excluded the properties in disput...
Partap Singh Vs. Dalip Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All537
Bennet, J.1. These are two first appeals, one being No. 439 of 1926 brought by Partap Singh against Dalip Singh and the other No. 198 of 1928 by Dalip Singh against Mt. Ghasiti and Partap Singh. The family tree is as follows:Partap Singh________|___________| |Mt. Ghasiti Mt. Nankadei (died| 16 or 17 years ago).Bir Singh (died as a |minor in 1925) ||________|_____| |Dalip Singh Surat Singh2. On 20th October 1921 Surat Singh separated from the joint family by a deed of partition to which his father and brother Dalip Singh were parties.3. On 30th May 1923 there was a registered deed of partition by which Dalip Singh separated, obtaining one-third share of the joint family property and the remaining two-thirds shares were retained by Partap Singh and his minor son Bir Singh who was then alive. Subsequently Dalip Singh brought a suit No. 161 of 1924 against his father Partap Singh claiming damages for fraud, but he withdrew that suit. Again on 20th November 1924 Dalip Singh sued for partiti...
Kunwar Puran Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Bahal Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All319a
Bennet, J.1. There was a first appeal pending before this Court by Kunwar Puran Singh and Nitrapal Singh plaintiffs against defendants Mt. Bahal Kunwar and Mr. Javitri Kunwar.2. These persons are related as follows:Mahtab Singh|Mt. Bhan Kunwar diedin 1895.____________|__________| |Puran Singh Narain Singh (died in 1922)plff. 1.| =Mt. Bahal Kunwar, deft. 1.Nitrapal Singhplff. 2. =Mt. Javitri deft. 2.3. The plaintiffs sued for declaration that they were owners in possession by right of survivorship of the whole of the property of Narain Singh alleging that Narain Singh and the plaintiffs had formed a joint Hindu family. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that Narain Singh died as a separated Hindu. This suit was brought in 1925. On 8th February 1926 plaintiff 2 and mukhtariam of plaintiff 1 and mukhtariarn of Mr. Javitri Kunwar made an application in Court asking for the names of the plaintiffs to be recorded in place of Mt. Javitri Kunwar over her share of the property of Na...
Baleshar Pandey and anr. Vs. Ram Tahal Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All519
Dalal, J.1. A plea of jurisdiction has been raised during arguments though it was not taken in the grounds of appeal. Such a plea is admissible, and I have allowed such a plea to be raised, though counsel for the opposite party objected to the plea being raised in the second Court of appeal. The observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ram Lal v. Kisan Chandra A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 95 are very clear: see p. 393 of 22 A.L.J. para. 3. It is important to notice what the claim was. The plaintiffs desired joint possession along with the defendants over two plots of land. The whole plot 221 is divided into three portions entirely independent of one another: one of 2 biswas 15 dhurs, another of 2 biswas 9 dhurs, and a third of 12 dhurs. Over the first two plots the plaintiffs desired joint possession along with the defendants. Subsequent to the passing of the present Tenancy Act such a suit would lie in the revenue Court. Prior to the passing of that Act the suit would lie in the ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »