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.
Firm Pearey Lal Kishen Prasad Through Rai Sahib Lala Ram Asray Prasad ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.592
1. This case is in many respects analogous to Second Appeal No. 1493 of 1926. See 125 Ind. Cas. 453-[Ed.], Most of the points raised in the two appeals are identical and do not call for any separate treatment. Defendant No. 1 had contracted to sell 1200 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 No. 1 held certain contracts from defendants Nos. 2 and 3 as regards 800 maunds of wheat. The defendant No. 1 assigned these contracts to the plaintiff.2. The contract was contained in a langot in the minted form prescribed by the Meexut Veoparak Sabha. The Veoparak Sabha was registered on the 16th of June, 1925. The contract in suit was entered into on the 12th of June, 1925, According to a peculiar usage which obtains in Mandavi Qiisar Ganj in the city of Meerut the langot is a document of title and authorises the purchaser under the langot to deal with the grain purchased by transfers in f...
Mt. Moti Bala Debi Vs. Satyanand Tirtha Swami
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All348
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge of Benares in a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for enforcement of a mortgage deed dated 8th January 1921, executed by one Kalkanand Swami who was the Mahant of a shrine situate in Benares. A preliminary decree was passed against the aforesaid Kalkanand Swami on 24th February 1924. He died shortly afterwards. The period of grace fixed in the preliminary decree was three months. By an application dated 13th May 1924, the plaintiff-appellant prayed that Mahant Satyanand, the present respondent, be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased Kalkanand Swami. The former objected to the proceeding, taken by the plaintiff-appellant, on the ground that the property which had been mortgaged by Mahant Kalkanand Swami and to which the preliminary decree related was endowed property appertaining to the mutt of which Kalkanand Swami was the presiding Mahant and of whi...
Kauleshar Rai Vs. Banwari Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All362
Mukerji, J.1. The one point seriously pressed before us in this case is that the decree of the Courts below should have been one without specification of the plaintiff's share in the property. The other points have no force.2. It appears that the plaintiff Banwari Rai and the defendants Nageshar Rai and Kauleshar Rai come from the same family, being the descendants of one Ramphal Rai. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that a certain property detailed at the bottom of the plaint was the joint family property of the parties (among others), but that the defendants treated the same as their separate property. He asked for a declaration that in the aforesaid property his share was one-half. In the alternative he asked for possession over his half-share.3. The Courts below, that is to say, the Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court, found that the plaintiff was still joint with the defendants, although the plaintiff was living and having his food separately from the defendan...
JagnaraIn Kunbi and ors. Vs. Gaya Kunbi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All426
1. This is a letters patent appeal by the defendants against a decree for redemption of the mortgage held by the defendants as mortgagees on a certain occupancy holding. The defendants claim that the plaintiffs are not entitled to redeem this mortgage. The original mortgage was executed on Chait Sudi 13, 1894 for Rs. 199 by Ahlad in favour of Bhukhan and Prithi. Bhukhan and Prithi are the ancestors of the defendants. It is found as a fact by the lower appeallate Court that Ahlad is a collateral of the plaintiffs but that the plaintiffs did not share in cultivation of Ahlad. On the death of Ahlad the zamindar accepted the plaintiffs as his successors in the occupancy holding and in a suit for enhancement of the rent of this holding in 1915 the zamindars made defendants as mortgagees and plaintiffs as mortgagors parties to the suit. We are of opinion that when zamindar accepted the plaintiffs as successors to Ahlad in this occupancy tenancy the plaintiffs did in fact succeed to Ahlad and...
Gaya Prasad Vs. Jaswant Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All550; 125Ind.Cas.460
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption against a number of defendants, who have purchased shares in village Char under a deed dated 31st January 1925. The claim was mainly resisted on the strength of two deeds of gift executed by one Ram Nath, in favour of the defendant separately on 4th January 1926 and 1st March 1927. The first document was executed before the institution of the suit, but the second one was executed during its pendency. The plaintiff challenged the validity of these two gifts on the ground that the first one was fictitious, void and ineffectual, and that possession had not been delivered to the donees, and that the second one was in reality a sale deed and not a deed of gift. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided these questions of fact against the plaintiff, and the findings have been arrived at after an elaborate consideration of the evidence produced by both the parties. We agree with his conclusions, and do not feel ...
Sughra Bibi Vs. Gaya Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All580
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order brought by Mt. Sughra Bibi appellant, the wife of Abdul Mughni insolvent. Abdul Mughni was adjudged an insolvent on 3rd December 1927, and a previous transfer had been made by him to his wife on 21st February 1927, of all his property in lieu of her dower debt. That transfer was set aside as fraudulent, and that matter is not now before us. Subsequently the appellant Mt. Sughra Bibi applied to have her name entered in the schedule of creditors for the total amount of her deferred dower debt which was Rs. 5,000. The two lower appellate Courts have refused that application. The sole question before us is whether a Mahommedan wife is entitled to be entered in the schedule of creditors of her insolvent husband for the amount of her deferred dower debt. Deferred dower debt, as stated in para. 46 of Wilson's Mahomedan Law, Edn. 4, is payable only on the termination of the marriage by death or divorce. Neither of these contingencies has yet t...
Mt. Kaniz Sughra Bibi Vs. Mt. Fidai Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All466
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge. The facts very briefly are as follows: The appellant Kaniz Sughra brought a suit for partition of certain joint property against the plaintiff-respondents, who are two minors, and against others. That suit has culminated in a final decree, and it also appears that in execution of that decree Mt. Kaniz Sughra has taken possession over one of the joint houses, being house No. 67. The respondents brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to obtain a declaration that the earlier decree was not binding on them for the reason that the person,, who was appointed their guardian for the suit, did not look after their interest and, in fact, was guilty of fraud.2. The first Court dismissed the suit on She ground that the plaintiffs ware bound to ask for possession over house No. 67. The learned District Judge on appeal held that the suit was not barred by Section 42, Specific Belief Act, ...
Rikhi Ram and anr. Vs. Pancham Dube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1930
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.108
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal brought by the plaintiffs against a decree of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff sued defendant No. 1 his uncle for profits valued at Rs. 120 12 0 per annum under Section 165, Act II of 1901 as a co-sharer who had collected in excess his share of profits.2. The basis of the claim is that one Bindeshri had four sons and the plaintiffs represented one of the sons and are the owners of a quarter share in patti of Bind-eshri and defendant, No. 1. Pancham is another son of Bindeshri and also the owner of a quarter share. In addition to ownership of a quarter share Pancham is recorded as sole occupancy tenant of 8 bighas 1 biswa in this patti No. 513-A at a rental of Rs. 4-4-9. The plaint claims that the annual profit should be Rs. 30 per bigha and, therefore, that a half share of the annual profits of the occupancy holding valued at Rs. 120-12-0 should come t...
Ahmad HusaIn and ors. Vs. Tahir HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All475
Mukerji, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the property against which a decree for sale is asked for is liable to pay the entire amount claimed or whether it is liable for only seven-eighths of the amount claimed.2. It appears that by a decree based on an award passed in 1901, a certain property was held liable by way of a charge for the payment of certain profits. The suit is for realization of the said profits. In execution of a previous decree passed in a similar suit, a one-eighth share of the property charged was sold. It was purchased not by the plaintiff as stated in the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, but by certain other persons, some of whom are parties to the suit and others are not. The plaintiffs claim a right to bring to sale the remaining seven-eighths share for payment of their entire claim. The learned Munsif was of opinion that a deduction should be made of an eighth portion of the claim, because the property that r...
Sh. Mohammad Ata HusaIn Vs. Haji Qadir Baksh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All560
Mukerji, J.1. The plan which has been made a part of the decree of the learned single Judge of this Court will be found useful in understanding the nature of this case. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sold to the defendant the building described on this plan by the letters I H G F E B. It will be noticed that this building is a part of a much larger building which belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to obtain an injunction restraining the defendant from using the door EJ as a passage. There are other reliefs with which we are not at present concerned. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. The lower appellate Court dismissed it. On second appeal, a learned Judge of this Court decreed the suit in part. What he did was to grant an injunction to the defendant that he shall not use the door EJ except for the purpose of passage for the sweeper, for the purpose of cleaning the latrine near the letter B. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »