Allahabad Court November 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.
Kanhaya Lal Vs. Tulsi Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All197; 129Ind.Cas.550
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Aligarh. The facts of the case are complicated. They deal with the transfer between a large number of parties of the rights arising out of a mortgage, the date of which' is unknown, but which mortgage is admitted by the parties. It is unnecessary for me to detail at length the various dealings in this matter. Eventually however one Kanhaya, the plaintiff, became sole possessor of the mortgagor rights in this old mortgage and he became the owner of three-fourths of the mortgagee rights as well.2. The one-fourth of the mortgagee rights outstanding was held by one Tulsi Ram, who is the defendant. Kanhaya Lal brought a suit for redemption of the one-fourth share held by Tulsi Ram. The plaintiff was met with the defence that he could not redeem this one-fourth share without redeeming also one-fourth share of a mortgage dated 1874 entered into between the same parties. The defendant produced the...
Amir Singh Vs. Mohd. Zahiruddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All200
Dalal, J.1. I am of opinion that the subordinate Courts were correct in holding that the present suit was not barred by res judicata. The plaintiff, who is obviously a persistent claimant, sued in 1912 in the revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendant from pasture land. The revenue Court refused to take cognizance on the ground that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction. For that reason the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. It is true that the plaint ought to have been returned. This was a defect of procedure, but did not amount to any decision on the matter in issue. There was again litigation in 1922 in the revenue Court, which again denied jurisdiction. Subsequently the present Tenancy Act (3 of 1926) was passed and the revenue Court was definitely given jurisdiction to deal with ejectment suits relating to pasture land. The plaintiff again went to the revenue Court for ejectment of the defendant and succeeded this time. The defence of res judicata was not accepted, and I think ...
Gobardhan Das Vs. Mt. Jai Devi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All221
Mukerji, J.1. This is a petition in revision by Gobardhan Das whose defence was struck off and an ex parte decree against whom was passed by the learned Munsif of Hathras.2. A preliminary point is taken that no-revision lies. It appears that after the learned Munsif had passed an ex parte decree against the defendant, the defendant took the matter in appeal to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge considered the. merits of the case and was of opinion that the order complained of had been properly passed. The Judge accordingly dismissed the appeal.3. The proper remedy of the applicant was to file a second appeal. When this was pointed out, the learned Counsel for the appellant asked permission to amend the heading of his petition so that it might be treated as a second appeal from a decree and he offered to pay the court-fees. In order to find out whether we should allow all this to be done, we looked into the merits of the case and 'having discovered that there were no...
Chandharan Krishna Kumari Vs. Chaudhri Naubehar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All242a
Sen, J.1. This appeal is clearly misconceived and ought to be dismissed. On 20th December 1920 a succession certificate was granted to the appellant conditional upon her furnishing security for Rs. 6,000. A security bond was duly executed. She made an application for the cancellation of the said bond but her application was dismissed on 13th July 1928. A second application to the same effect was made and this application also shared the same fate. An appeal has been presented to this Court from the order of the learned Additional District Judge of Moradabad refusing to cancel the certificate. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lies. An appeal is clearly a creature of statute. Under Section 384, Succession Act (Act 29 of 1925), an appeal lies to the Court from an order of a District Judge granting refusing or revoking a certificate under Part 10 of the Act. The order in question is one refusing to cancel the certificate, and ...
Raja Ram and ors. Vs. Chhotay Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All332
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiffs against an order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad, dated 4th February 1929. This order is to the following effect:The parties agree that this suit stand over pending a final decision by a competent Court whether this is or is not a public trust.2. The first ground of revision is that no consent of parties can take away the jurisdiction of a Court and that the Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction. It is not quite clear from the order complained of that the learned District Judge had refused to exercise jurisdiction; but a later order of the District Judge dated 16th April 1929 does in our opinion amount to a definite refusal to exercise jurisdiction. This case was of a very ordinary nature, a suit by the plaintiffs with the permission of the Legal Remembrancer asking for the relief that the defendants should be removed from being pujaris or trustees of a certain public trust and that another trustee s...
Nanhe and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All367
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by Nanhe and Abdual Hasan from an order convicting them under Section 395 read with Section 397, I. P. C, and sentencing them each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. There can be no doubt as to the facts of the dacoity. On 15th January 1925, at about 7 p. m., seven or eight dacoits surrounded the house of Shyam Lal Padhan. They were armed with guns, sword, spear, knives and lathis. Shyam Lal was outside in the verandah and his wife Mt. Phul Kali was inside, and her statement is that three dacoits entered the house, one of whom was armed with a sword and the other two had knives with them. They caught hold of her and stripped her of her silver and gold ornaments which she was wearing. They also beat her and asked her to point out where the other valuables were. She was dragged outside the house, was slapped and dragged up to a pipal tree which is about 30 or 40 paces from the house. On an alarm being raised the villagers arrived and then the dacoits ...
Ajodhia Prasad Vs. Data Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All131
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration as to the extent of the share which the plaintiff has acquired by purchase. The plaintiff is the son of Kanhai Lal, who held a simple money decree, No. 371 of 1923, against Mathura Prasad, who is a member of a joint Hindu family. The joint family consists of Data Ram whom we shall call the grandfather, Data Ram's son Mathura Prasad whom we shall call the father, and Mathura Prasad's three minor sons whom we shall call the grandsons. The debt was a personal debt of the father Mathura Prasad. The decree-holder attached a half share in the joint family property and objections appear to have been raised by Data Ram which were disallowed presumably because his half-share had not been sought to be attached. Fresh objections were filed on behalf of the minor grandsons. On 13th October 1923 the decree-holder applied to the Court stating that he had attached only the right and interest of Mathura Prasad and that...
Panchu Lonia Vs. Ram Newaz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1932All244
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for possession of 24 acres of land forming part of plot No. 681 in a fixed rate holding situate in mouza Kadipur in the district of Jaunpur. Admittedly the parties to the action were joint tenants of this holding. The plaintiff alleges that under a mutual partition half the plot referred to above was allotted to his share, the other half, towards the west, being received by the defendants. The defendants have unlawfully ejected the plaintiff from his portion of the holding. Hence the suit for possession and damages. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal came to the conclusion that, having regard to the allegations contained in the plaint, the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court and that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the Court of Revenue. This position is assailed by the plaintiff and we have got to see as to whether the present case is or is not g...
Mt. Saidunnisa Vs. Mt. Ruqya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All307
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of 28 out of 160 sihams in the estate of her deceased father. She is one of the daughters of the late Syed Ali Hussain Khan, who died on 8th March 1926. The deceased had his legally wedded wife Valan Bibi from whom he had two daughters who survived him. He also had a muta wife, Bandi Bibi, from whom he had one son and one daughter. Admittedly the plaintiff's share in his estate would be 28 out of 160 sihams.2. Mt. Walan Bibi applied to the District Judge for being appointed the guardian of the persons and properties of her two children. The District Judge by an order dated 9th May 1908 appointed her the certificated guardian. A certificate was issued to her in due course.3. On 2nd March 1909 an agreement for reference to arbitration of three persons was signed by the widow Mt. Walan Bibi on her behalf and as guardian of her minor daughter and also by Nurul-Hasan, the brother of the deceased, as...
Ram Sakal Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All142; 129Ind.Cas.715
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares under Section 438, Criminal P.C., recommending that the conviction of the applicants of an offence of theft and sentences of fine passed on them by a Magistrate of the First Class in that district be set aside. The applicants for revision, Lalta Singh and Ram Sakal Singh , are nephews of one Jagardeo whose growing crop was attached in execution of a civil Court decree at the instance of Mahabir, the decree-holder who is also the landholder and cut and removed the crops said to have bean so attached.2. The attachment was made by beat of drum and it is not disputed that the procedure prescribed by Order 21, Rule 44, Criminal P. C, was not followed. That rule provides that in case of growing crops attachment shall be madeby affixing a copy of the warrant of attachment on the land on which such crop hag grownand another copy on the outer door or some conspicuous part of the house in which the judgment-...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »