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.
Paras Ram and anr. Vs. Mt. Mewa Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All561
Kendall, J.1. First Appeals Nos. 34 of 1928, 7 of 1926 and 20 of 1927 have by consent been connected in this Court, although they arise out of three different and independent suits. First Appeal No. 34 is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 25th March 1909 executed by Durga Prasad for himself and as guardian of his minor nephew Kewal Kishen in favour of two sets of mortgagees. The present plaintiffs represent the mortgagees who had a three-fourths interest in the mortgage money. The other mortgagees had a one-fourth interest. The amount of mortgage money was Rs. 28,000 and carried interest at 11-annas per cent per mensem compoundable every six months. The share of the present plaintiffs in the mortgage money came to Rs. 21,000, and together with interest they claimed nearly Rs. 83,000 in March 1926. The main defence was raised on behalf of Mt. Champa Kunwar, the widow of Debi Prasad, who was a brother of Durga Prasad, and was to the effec...
Mrs. M.B. Hartley Vs. Jack Fleming Hartley
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All322
Boys, J.1. Mrs. Muriel Blanche Hartley asks this Court to confirm the decree nisi granted to her by Mr. Badhwar, District Judge of Saharanpur, for dissolution of her marriage with Jack Fleming Hartley, on the ground of adultery and cruelty.2. As the record stood when it came before us, we should have had no hesitation in refusing to confirm the decree. Both Mr. Badhwar, the District Judge who tried the case, and Mr. Wahid, who appeared before him and in this Court on behalf of the petitioner, would almost seem to have been under the impression that, if a petition for divorce is unopposed, it is sufficient basis for a decree if there is evidence that the respondent has committed adultery and has been cruel to his wife. There is not in the judgment one single word to suggest that the learned Judge gave one moment's thought to such very material questions as whether there had been unexplained delay in filing the petition, or whether there had been connivance on the part of the petitioner ...
Mrs. Muriel Blanche Hartley Vs. Jack Fleming Hartley
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.465
1. Mrs. Muriel Blanche Hartley asks this Court to confirm the decree nisi granted to her by Mr. Badhwar, District Judge of Saharanpur, for dissolution of her marriage with Jack Fleming Hartley, on the ground of adultery and cruelty.2. As the record stood when it came before us, we should have had no hesitation what-, ever in refusing to confirm the decree. Both Mr. Badhwar, the District Judge who tried the case, and Mr. R. I. Wahid, who appeared before him and in this Court on behalf of the petitioner, would almost seem to have been under the impression that, if a petition for divorce is unopposed, it is sufficient basis for a decree if there is evidence that the respondent has committed the adultery and has been cruel to his wife. There is not in the judgment one single word to suggest that the learned Judge gave one moment's thought to such very material questions as whether there had been unexplained delay in filing the petition, or whether there had been connivance on the part of t...
Kunwar Puran Singh and anr. Vs. Musammat Bahal Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.583
1. There was a first appeal pending before this Court by Kunwar Puran Singh and Nitrapal Singh, plaintiffs, against defendants, Musammat Bahal Kunwar and Musammat Javitri Kunwar. These persons are related as follows:MAHTAB SINGH |Musammat Bhan Kunwar died in 1895| _________________________| |Puran Singh Narain Singhplaintiff No. 1 died in 1922| =MusammatNitrapal Singh Bahal Kunwar plaintiff No. 2 defendant No. 1 = Musammat Javitri defendant No. 2.2. 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, the plaintiff No. 2 and mukhtari-am of plaintiff No. 1 and mukhtar i am of Musammat Javitri Kunwar made an application in Court asking for the names of the plaintiffs to be recorde...
Mohammad Yusuf Vs. Suraj Bali Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All338
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the owner of plot 410, which is jungle, situated in village Saraiya in the Jaunpur district, and that the defendants have no interest in it. The defence was that the village originally belonged to the ancestor of the defendants who sold it to the plaintiff's ancestor exempting jungle and waste land. The plot in dispute is the remnant of a jungle, part of which has since become cultivated land. It is pleaded that the plaintiff was not in possession of the plot in dispute at any time within 12 years before the suit and that the defendants have been in proprietary and adverse possession thereof for a considerable length of time. Lastly, it is claimed that the defendants and their ancestors have been grazing their cattle in this jungle and other jungles in the village and taking wood therefrom, that it is not open to the plaintiff to convert the plot into cultivated land and that the pl...
Chiraunji Lal Vs. Ishwar Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All578
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal brought by the defendant Chiraunji Lal against a decree of a learned single Judge of this Court, awarding the plaintiff a decree for possession of a grove. The suit was dismissed by the two lower Courts. The facts are as follows: One Mr. Gardner was the sole owner of the zamindari rights in a certain village, and in 1904 Ishwar Das, the plaintiff, bought a grove from Mr. Gardner. That sale deed clearly sets forth that Mr. Gardner was the owner in possession of that grove, and he sold the rights of ownership of the grove to Ishwar Das. Prior to this sale, on 9th October 1882, Mr. Gardner had executed a simple mortgage of his zamindari rights in this village. The sale deed of 1904 was therefore subject to this mortgage. In 1910 Baldeo Prasad, the mortgagee, brought a suit for sale on his simple mortgage to which he made Ishwar Das, the present plaintiff, a defendant, as he was the owner of this specific plot comprising this grove. A preliminar...
Sri Ram Chandra Naik Kalya Vs. Satya NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All353; 124Ind.Cas.471
Bennet, J.1. These are five connected appeals brought by a plaintiff against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff which was for assessment of rant and in the alternative for assessment of the share of Government revenue on the plots held by the defendants who were entered as muafidars. The lower Courts have also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was claimed by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, that his case came under Section 156, Act 2 of 1901. Section 150 lays down that the proprietor of a mahal or part of a mahal may sue to resume possession of on have rent assessed on any lands situated in such mahal or part of a mahal purporting to be held rent free or to have the holder thereof declared to be liable to pay revenue on it. Section 154 lays down the cases in which land held rent free is 1930 A' 45 & 46 liable to resumption. Section 158 lays down the case of land which is not liable to resumption under...
Emperor Vs. Jiwan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All408
Dalal, J.1. I feel considerable difficulty in deciding this matter because both the subordinate Courts have gone wrong in certain particulars. They have differed in opinion. The trial Magistrate was of opinion that the opposite party should be bound over, while the appellate Court discharged the order of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has made the mistake so often commented upon by this Court of treating all the accused in a lump without discrimination and without an attempt to discover which of them was likely to commit a breach of the peace. After, reading the evidence I have not the slightest doubt that Sirajuddin is in some danger of being submitted to physical force by some of the Jats of his village. The difficulty exists in the confusion caused by the trial. Court treating all the accused persons as if they formed one single individual. The appellate Court has gone wrong in his opinion that to bind over persons it is not sufficient to prove a danger of the breach of the peace bu...
Ram Sarup Ahir Vs. Nageshwar Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All444
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for redemption on the ground that the suit is premature. There were four usufructuary mortgages of four separate plots of fixed rate tenancy made by the plaintiff's predecessor in favour of the defendant, all the mortgage deeds being executed in the year 1904. The deeds all contained the clause which was as follows:Bebilwafa miadi 45 sal pass mahajan mazkur ke karke iqrar Karta hun... jam miad par hul asl mundarja wasiqa haza yakmusht ada karen tab arazi marhuna takkerahu kara lewen wa aqar miad muaiyanb par kul rupea yakmusht ada na karen tab araza marhuny bad 45 sal ke be kamil hojawe.2. The suit for redemption was brought in the year 1924. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that in general, under any mortgage by conditional sale, Section 58(c). T.P. Act, gives a right to redeem at any period prior to the certain date on which the...
Muhammad Ishaq Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All530
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the Municipal Board of Cawnpore against one Muhammad Ishaq for the recovery of a certain sum of money due on account of house-tax and water-tax for the period from 1st October 1917 to 31st March 1928.2. The suit was resisted on the ground that no tax which accrued due for a period more than six years before the institution of the suit was within the period of limitation. It was also contended that the defendant had gifted half of his house to his son and, therefore, was not liable to pay the whole amount of the tax claimed.3. The Court of first instance found that the alleged gift by the defendant to his son had not been proved and this finding was not challenged in the lower appellate Court; so I must take it that the alleged gift has not been proved.4. The only point which has been argued before me is whether the Courts below were right in finding that the period of limitation applicable to the suit was governed by Article 132, Sch. 1, L...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »