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.
Piare Lal and ors. Vs. Musammat Saraswati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.381
1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit on the 11th of October, 1924, for a declaration that certain transfers made by Musammat Parbati, widow of Jawahir Lal, were void and ineffectual against the plaintiffs and for possession of some of the properties left by Jawahir Lal.2. Jawahir Lal died leaving a widow Musammat Parbati and a sister Musammat Bano. His property consisted of a house, two shops and a plot of waste land situate in Mandavi Rexganj, one of the Muhallas of Sirsaganj, Pargana Shikohabad in the District of Mainpuri. He also left a dwelling house situate in Dayaganj, another Muhalla of Sirsaganj. Upon the death of Jawahir Lal his estate devolved upon his widow Musammat Parbati. On the 22nd of February, 1909, Musammat Parbati executed a deed of gift of the entire estate belonging to her husband in favour of Jwala Prasad, her brother. Jwala Prasad is alleged to have taken possession of this property on the death of Musammat Parbati. Jwala Prasad sold the house in Dayaganj to Jiwa ...
Mohammad Ishaq Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1930
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.379
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 the 1st October, 1917, to the 31st of 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 ...
Emperor Vs. Himanchal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All265
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government from an order passed by a Magistrate acquitting Himanchal Singh upon a charge of an offence under Section 174, I.P.C. The Magistrate acquitted the accused following, as he was bound to do, the decision of two Judges of this Court in Emperor v. Bhirgu Singh : AIR1927All122 . The Local Government being dissatisfied with the decision in that case that a citation to appear issued under Section 147, Land Revenue Act (U.P.), 3 of 1901, was not a summons, notice or order which the recipient was legally bound to obey have appealed from the decision of the Magistrate. Without waiting to see whether the Bench of two Judges of this Court before whom the appeal might come agreed with the decision of the two Judges of this Court above mentioned, the learned Government Advocate, presumably under instructions from the Local Government, secured an immediate reference by the Chief Justice of the appeal to a Full Bench. We think that the Chief Justice would n...
Goswami Sadanand Vs. Goswami Indra Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All383
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal and appeal No, 67 of 1926 arise out of the same suit and will be decided by the same judgment.2. The pedigree at p. 67 of the paper book of appeal No. 88 of 1926 will show how the parties are related be one another. It appears that either in the lifetime of Goklanandji, the remote ancestor or from before, there was established a temple in the holy city of Brindaban. The presiding deity of the temple is known as Mahaprabhuji and the temple itself is known as Singar Bat. The management of the temple, which is open to the public is in the hands of the descendants of Goklanandji. In course of time, the management came to be divided among the three descendants of Goklanandji, who had it appears, three sons, Nimanandji, Sundarnandji and Keshavanandji. The branch of Nimanandji, came to be known as the 'Bari Taraf' or the oldest branch, The descendants of Sundaranandji came to be described as the middle branch and Keshavanandji's descendants came to be described as 'C...
Rozan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All658
Dalal, J.1. I am not surprised at the Magistrate being confused by the inartistic provisions of Ch. 10, Criminal P.C. What is meant by the provisions of Section 139(2) is that when a Magistrate finds that there is reliable evidence in support of the denial by the defendant of the plaintiff's claim of public right, all he has to do is merely to stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of such right has been decided by a competent civil Court. The provisions of Section 140(1) do not apply to such stay and the Magistrate cannot compel either party to go to the civil Court. The purpose of this new section introduced in 1923 is clear. The plaintiff in the criminal Court makes a claim and a defendant denies it. If the denial is proved the criminal Court holds its hand and it will be the business of the plaintiff to bring a civil suit if he likes. If he does not, the denial is maintained. If he does bring a suit and succeeds the Magistrate may proceed to pass an order absolute u...
Shri Mahant Shiva Ling Swami Jangam Vs. Mahadeo Appa
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.472
1. This is an appeal by the defendant which arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 675 principal and Rs. 152-2-3 interest.2. Rani Deo Amma, widow of Raja Ling Rajendra Wadiar, executed a Will in favour Birbhadra Swami Jangam on the 12th May, 1891. The testatrix died, and Birbhadra Swami Jangam entered into possession of the entire estate. Upon the death of the latter his disciple, Mahant Rajeshwar Swami succeeded to the estate and, after him, the estate devolved upon the defendant in his capacity as disciple of Mahant Rajeshwar Swami.3. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Will are material for the purpose of appeal. Paragraph 6 provides 'that out of the income from the interest and from my property the executor should pay Rs. 20 per month to my mother, Lachhmi Amma, who lives with me, and Rs. 15 per month to Balaji Jamadar and Rs. 7 per month to Munshi Jager Dev Prasad, who are my own servants and well-wishers, for their lives. As Balaji is an old servant of mine, it is incumbent on the execut...
B. Dallu Singh and anr. Vs. B. Chhakan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All446; 128Ind.Cas.5
Sulaiman, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 1792, 1793, 1794 and 1795 are defendants' appeals and are connected with each other. On 3rd April 1925, a sale deed of five annas four pies share in two mahals of mauza Lohradih was executed by Jagpat Singh in favour of Dallu Singh was Rs. 1,000. On the same date a perpetual lease was executed by the same person in favour of Sukhdeo Singh, who was a nephew of the vendee. This lease related to sir lands and was in lieu of a premium of Rs. 3,000 fixing an annual rent of Rs. 90, By a subsequent compromise, dated 14th October 1925, in a suit brought by the transferrer to set aside these two transfers it was ultimately agreed to return the share in one mahal to the transferrer, the transferee retaining the share in mahal Katwaru only. It is this share which is in dispute in these appeals.2. The present plaintiffs instituted a suit (out of which S.A. No. 1792 arises) to pre-empt both the sale and the perpetual lease of the shares in mahal Katwaru, alleging ...
Peare Lal-kishan Prasad Vs. Diwan Singh-ganeshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All661
1. Parties to this action are dealers in grain in Mandavi Faizaganj in the city of Meerut. On Jeth Badi 12, Sambat 1982 corresponding to 19th May 1925, the plaintiff-appellant purchased from the defendant-respondent a khatti or grain pit situate in Ahata Sri Ram. The bargain was struck about the purchase of 504 maunds of wheat at the rate of Rs. 5-9-3 per maund. A quarter of the purchase money, Rs. 748-9-6, was paid by way of earnest money. It was a term of the contract that the balance of the purchase money, namely Rs. 2,100,. was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant later upto Phagun Sudi 5, 17th February 1926 in accordance with the custom of the trade which prevailed in the Faizganj market.2. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing and were embodied in two separate documents in printed forms exchanged between the parties. These documents have the curious name of langot. The etymology of the word is not known, but the langot appears to possess the incidents of bough...
Pearey Lal Krishen Prasad Vs. Dev Karan Das Ram Saran Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All886
1. This case is in many respects analagous to Pearey Lal Kishen Prasad v. Diwan Singh : AIR1930All661 . Most of the points raised in the two appeals are identical and do not call for any separate treatment. Defendant 1 had contracted to sell 1,00 maunds of wheat to the plaintiff. Four hundred maunds of wheat were either delivered or the claim relating to the same was duly settled. Defendant 1 held certain contracts from defendants 2 and 3 as regards 800 maunds of wheat. Defendant 1 assigned these contracts to the plaintiff.2. The contract was contained in a langot in the printed form prescribed by the Meerut Veoparak Sabha. The Veoparak Sabha was registered on 16th June 1925. The contract in suit was entered into on 12th June 1925. According to a peculiar usage which obtains in Mandavi Qaisar Ganj in the city of Meerut the langot is a document of title and authorizes the purchaser under the langot to deal with the grain purchased by transfers in favour of new purchasers. Even when the ...
Firm Peare Lal Kishan Prasad Through Rai Saheb Ram Asre Prasad Vs. Fir ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.453
1. Parties to this action are dealers in grain in Mandavi Faizganj in the City of Meerut. On Jeth Badi 12, Sambat 1982 corresponding to the 19h of May, 1925, the plaintiff-appellant purchased from the defendant-respondent a khatti or grain pit situate in Ahata Sri Ram. The bargain struck about the purchase of 504 maunds of wheat at the rate of Rs. 5-9-3 per mauud. A quarter of the purchase-money, namely, Rs. 748-9 5 was paid by way of earnest money, It was a term of the contract that the balance of the purchase-money, namely, Rs. 2,100 was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant later up to Phagun Sudi 5, 17th of February, 1926, in accordance with the cu stom of the trade which prevailed in the Faizganj market. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing and were embodied in two separate documents in printed forms exchange between the parties. These documents have been the curious name of langot. The etymology of the word is not known but the langot appears to possess the in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »