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.
Rameshar Singh and ors. Vs. Syed HusaIn Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.27
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of a learned single Judge of this Court who has ordered that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem a usufructuary mortgage of 17th February, 1877, on payment of the amount due under a deed of 18th March. 1880.2. The contention for the plaintiff is that he is entitled to redeem the usufructuary mortgage of 1877 without payment of any sum due under the deed of 18th March. 1880. The appellant relies on the case of Kesar Kunwar v. Kashi Ram 30 Ind. Cas. 777 : 37 A. 634 : 13 A.L.J. 889, a ruling of 1315. To a certain extent the appellants' case might receive support from a Full Bench rulingin S.A. No. 850 of 1926 Lallu Singh v. Ram Nandan : AIR1930All136 , decided on 22nd November, 1929, in which it was held that where the second document did not create any charge or mortgage on the property, the usufructuary mortgagor may redeem the prior usufructuary mortgage without paying the debt due on the second documen...
Lala Ram Rattan Lal Vs. Musammat Gaura and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1930
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.765
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 378-3-0 principal and Rs. 134 13 0 interest, in respect of certain land revenue which had been paid by the plaintiff appellant by reason of a default on the part of the co-sharers of Mauza Mohammadpur Gularia, mahal Soem. Musammat Gaura and 34 other persons were co-sharers in this mahal, Musammat Gaura had executed a simple mortgage of her share in this property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. She had also passed a mortgage an favour of one Ujagir Singh. Ujagir Singh put his mortgage into suit, obtained a decree against Musammat Gaura and purchased her interest in the property himself. Plaintiff brought a suit for enforcement of his prior lien by the Suit No. 136 of 1917 which was directed both against Musammat Gaura, the mortgagor and Ujagir Singh, the puisne encumbrancer, who had in the meantime already purchased the property. The plaintiff's claim was decreed and in execution of the final decree contain-ed by him, the int...
Mt. Rasulan Vs. Babu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All350
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit was decreed in full by both the lower Courts, but on appeal by a defendant, the learned Judge of this Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in regard to half an occupancy holding. The pedigree in this case is as follows:Imam_____________|______________| |Mt. Rasulan (Pltff.) Abdul Rahman =daughterMt. Mirian (widow)_____________________________| | |Abdul Aziz Mt. Nasira Mt. Khalila2. Imam was the owner of an occupancy holding and he died before Act 2 of 1901. He was succeeded by his daughter Mt. Rasulan the present plaintiff and his son Abdul Rahman. Although according to Mahomedan Law Abdul Rahman would have bean entitled to a two-thirds share, the entry of the occupancy holding was made for Mt. Rasulan and Abdul Rahman in equal shares. Abdul Rahman died about nine or ten years before the suit and he was succeeded by his son Abdul Aziz who died without issue in 1916. On the death of Abdul Aziz, the nam...
Jagan Nath and anr. Vs. Kunwar Girwar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All368
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,841-12-0 being principal and interest alleged to be due under a promissory note dated 5th August 1925 admittedly executed by the defendant-appellant for Rs. 1,680. The plaintiff's case as set forth in the plaint was that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 1,680 in cash on the date he executed the promissory note in suit. In defence it was pleaded that no cash advance had been made on 5th August 1925, that the defendant had executed a ruqqa on 6th August 1922, and that the promissory note in suit related to what was due under the previous ruqqa after relinquishment of Rs. 29 by the plaintiff. It should be mentioned that the promissory note dated 5th August 1925 on which the suit was founded bore a stamp of one anna only. It should have borne stamp of two annas. It was pleaded by the defendant that the promissory note in suit was not admissible in evidence for want o...
Nageshwar Bharthi and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Bharthi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1930
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.191
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against a decision of one of the learned Judges of this Court. The facts which have given rise to the litigation are briefly as follows : One Sheonath Bharthi was the mahant of a math and in that capacity held certain lands as an inferior proprietor. He had a chela or disciple in one Sheobaksh. The ascetics of this math were not allowed to marry, but Sheobaksh did marry. The result was that Sheobaksh became disentitled to become the mahant, as a successor to Sheonath. There was a dispute between Sheonath and Sheobaksh and certain persons, as arbitrators, settled it. Sheobaksh was given 51 bighas of land for his maintenance. It was further provided that Sheobaksh's son would be initiated by Sheonath as his chela, and that son would succeed Sheonath. Sheo-bakhsh had, as a matter of fact, three sons. One of these Ramnarain, the present respondent, was initiated as a chela and succeeded Sheonath to the math. On the death of Sheobaksh his two remaining son...
Banke Behari Lal Vs. Raghubar Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All380; 122Ind.Cas.189
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by the judgment-debtor arising out of a suit for sale. After the preliminary decree for sale was passed one of the judgment-debtors Duli Chand died. An objection was raised on behalf of the other judgment-debtors that his heirs not having been brought on the record within three months the suit had abated. This objection was overruled and a final decree was passed on 8th April 1922. The surviving judgment-debtors appealed to the lower appellate Court. While that appeal was pending the decree-holder Babu Ram on 7th October 1922, assigned his rights and interests in the decree to Raghubar Dayal. Raghubar Dayal made no attempt to have his name brought on the record in the appeal. The decree-holder alone contested it. The lower appellate Court decreed the appeal against the decree-holder and presumably modified it so far as the deceased judgment-debtor was concerned. The decree-holder preferred a second appeal to the High Court which was ult...
Chaube Munna Lal Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1930
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.188
1. This is a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri in regard to an application made to him for a refund of Rs. 10 Court-fee excess paid by inadvertence. The applicant had paid Rs. 195 Court-fee on a plaint, by an arithmetical error, apparently, for Rs. 185. The learned Subordinate Judge was in doubt as to whether he could issue a certificate under Ch. XVII, Rule 28 of the General Rules (Civil) for Courts subordinate to the High Court. His doubt arose because of a letter No. 2541-VS 273B, dated the 18th of December, 1926, from the Registrar of the Board of Revenue, U. P., to the Collector of Mainpuri, stating in a similar case that the refund was not allowable unless there was a special hardship which might be referred to Government, and returning a certificate of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri.2. We have heard the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Revenue Authorities. The applicant has not been ...
Munna Lal Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All471a
Bennet, J.1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C., made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri in regard to an application made to him for a refund of Rs. 10 court-fee excess paid by inadvertence. The applicant had paid Rs. 195 court-fee on a plaint, by an arithmetical error, apparently, for Rs. 185. The learned Subordinate Judge was in doubt as to whether he could issue a certificate under Chap. 17, Rule 28, General Rules (Civil) for Courts subordinate to the High Court. His doubt arose because of a letter No, 2541 / V.S. 2738 dated 18th December 1926, from the Registrar of the Board of Revenue U.P. to the Collector of Mainpuri, stating in a similar case that the refund was not allowable unless there was a special hardship which might be referred to Government, and returning a certificate of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri.2. We have heard the learned Government advocate on behalf of the revenue authorities. The applicant has not been represented, It is clear...