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.
Mt. Rajwanta Kuer Vs. Mahabir Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All205; 129Ind.Cas.559
Dalal, J.1. An objection was raised by Mr. Pandey on behalf of the opposite party that no revision lay. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff Mahabir Rai under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for recovery of possession on the ground that he was dispossessed without his consent from immovable property within the period of limitation permitted under that section. The plaintiff's suit was decreed. No appeal can lie from a decree in such a suit and therefore the defendant applied by way of revision. Two rulings were cited by learned Counsel : Jwala v. Ganga Prasad [1908] 30 All. 331 and Ram Kishan Das v. Jai Kishan Das [1911] 33 All. 647. In neither case the question of jurisdiction was raised. Both cases were decided on the ground that it was open to the defendant to sue to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. In the present case there is no such remedy open to the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that he was the mortgagee of occupancy land. The mort...
Mirza Qaiser Beg Vs. B. Sheo Shanker Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1932All85; 129Ind.Cas.708
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an execration of decree appeal from an order passad by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur on an objection preferred by the appellant to the sale of village Mainipur, one of eleven properties directed to be sold by the decree obtained by the respondents under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C. Another of those sloven properties is village Pachhatia. It is common ground that Tashitn Ali Khan, to whom the aforesaid eleven properties belonged, executed a mortgage deed in 1910 in respect of village Paehhatia in favour of Damodar Das now represented by his son Sheo Shankar Das and others the respondent decree-holders.3. On 16th July 1914, Hashim Ali Khan executed a mortgage deed in respect of all the eleven items in favour of the aforesaid Damodar Das. : On 19th August 1915 Hashim Ali Khan sold Mainipur to Mirzi Kaiser Beg, the appellant. The respondent-decree-holders or their predecessor in title obtained certain mortgages in respect of some of the eleven propertie...
Ram Das Rae and ors. Vs. Brindaban Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All113; 129Ind.Cas.719
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff's and arises out of a suit for redemption of an alleged mortgage, dated 22nd August 1864. The case hinges upon the construction of two documents which were executed on the date last mentioned. By the first document Ex. A, Ram Prasad Rae and 26 others declared that they had absolutely sold certain property in patti Mathura Rae to Khushi Ram, Bhagirathi Ram, Kharag Ram and Ishri Ram for Rs. 2,758-5-3. On the same day, a second document was executed by Khushi Ram, Bhagirathi Ram, Kharag Ram and Ishri Ram whereby they declared that if the vendors paid off the entire amount due by them within 12 years from the date of the execution of the document, the said sale deed should be returned and the property sold be redeemed.2. The present suit was instituted on 3rd March 1925, on the allegation that the two documents were integral parts of a single transaction and constituted a mortgage by conditional sale.3. The suit was resisted inter alia on the g...
Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All126; 129Ind.Cas.551
1. This is an appeal from the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore. It was connected with first appeals from Orders. Nos. 62 of 1930 and 41 of 1930. We have heard these latter appeals and have dismissed them with costs. Those first appeals from order were in matters arising out of arbitration proceedings in connexion with alleged breaches of contract. This appeal arises out of a libel action. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been libelled. The defendants, who were importers of piece-goods sold by auction the goods which were the subject-matter of the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants because the plaintiffs failed to take delivery. The plaintiffs complain of the terms of the notice published by the auctioneers, which read as follows:Under instructions from Messrs. Jainy Brothers, the undersigned will sell by public auction the following goods near the shop of Messrs. Umrao Lal on account and risk of Messrs. Shankar Lal Lachhmi Narain, General...
Shankar Lal Lachhmi NaraIn Vs. Jainey Brothers
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All136a
Young, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Cawnpore, by which he dismissed an application to set aside an arbitration award. The facts are these: Messrs. Jainey Brothers, the defendant-respondents, are importers of Manchester Piece goods carrying on business in Cawnpore. Messrs. Shankar Lal-Lachhmi Narain, the plaintiffs-appellants, are dealers in such piece goods. The importers belong to an association called the Delhi Piece goods Association. That association has drawn up a form of indent contract which dealers must sign before they can deal with' the importer-members of the association.2. On 9th December 1923 Messrs. Shankar Lal-Lachhmi Narain, being desirous of buying certain cotton trouserings from Messrs. Jainey Brothers, signed the indent contract of the association, specifying two cases of cotton trousering at 1s. 10d. That indent contract contains a submission to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act. It also pro-' Tides in C...
Brijiwan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All209; 129Ind.Cas.558
ORDERDalal, J.1. Brijiwan Das was a treasurer of a zamindar of Benares and was convicted in 1929 of an offence under Section 408, I. P.C., of embezzlement with respect to a sum of Rs. 44-6-8-3 received by him in his capacity of servant of Babu Khiva Prasad Gupta and misappropriated by him between the dates 1st February 1928 and 26th September 1928. He was sentenced to a day's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 600. In the month of December, last year the applicant's master, through another servant, instituted a fresh complaint for the prosecution of Brijiwan Das on three charges of embezzling three sums of money on 21st June, 2nd August and 21st August 1928. It will be noticed that these dates fell within the dates of the previous charge, 1st February and 26th September but I have satisfied myself that these three items were not included in the gross sum for which the applicant was prosecuted, charged and convicted at the former trial.- There is a certain divergence of judicial opinion as ...
Raghubar Dayal Misra and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All263
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Nanak Chand took upon himself the task of satisfying the Court that the action of the applicants did not amount to an offence under Section 506, I. P.C. The first part of that section runs as follows:Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment.2. And the offence of criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 as:Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, or reputation or property...with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do. any act which he is not legally bound to do ...as the means of avoiding the execution of such, threat, commits criminal intimidation.3. The applicants were desirous of preventing the dealers in cloth in the market of Sikandrabad in the district of Bulandshahr from importing any more foreign cloth for sale; so in the middle of May last the applicant Ratan Lal served on a shopkeeper of the name of Abdul Sattar a notice Ex. B along with an agreement Ex. C. The sh...
Secy. of State and anr. Vs. Rup Ram-audh Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All135
Dalal, J.1. The Court of Small Causes decreed the plaintiffs' suit for damages for loss caused to a consignment of 'goods sent from Delhi to Budaun. There were five bales of cloth consigned and it is admitted that all the five bales were delivered. The shortage was due to some goods slipping out of some of the bales. The consignment was delivered to the company under risk-note form A which is to be used when the consignments are already in bad condition or so defectively packed as to be liable to damage, leakage or wastage in transit. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, on the authority of two rulings of this Court, held that it was first necessary for the railway company to prove loss before the plaintiffs can be called upon to prove that such loss arose from misconduct on the part of the railway administration or servants. The cases cited are E.I. Ry. Co. v. Makhan Lal A.I.R. 1923 All. 605 and E.I. Ry. Co. v. Kishan Lal Tirkhamal, A.I.R. 1924 All. 7. In both those cases i...
Bhup Singh Vs. Fateh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All192
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the learned District Judge of Agra refusing to entertain an appeal against an order of the Munsif of Fatehabad returning an application for presentation to the proper Court. The application in question was under Order 34, Rule 6, to recover the balance due from the defendant to the plaintiff under a certain mortgage bond. That mortgage bond had formed the subject matter in a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Agra. Subsequently, the plaintiff had brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Fatehabad on the basis of a charge which he alleged came into existence and obtained a decree in that Court against certain property. But the existence of a charge on the property in Fatehabad does not give the Munsif of Fatehabad jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order 34, Rule 6, because that rule only applied to a personal covenant arising from a mortgage. The mortgage suit and the mortgage came within the jurisdic...
Sarbhu Lal Vs. Mahesh Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All224; 129Ind.Cas.557
Bennet, J.1. These are two appeals which have been brought in this Court. No. 10 of 1929 is brought as a second appeal from order and No. 167 of 1929 is brought as a first appeal from order. In neither case do appeals lie to this Court under the provisions of Section 75, Provl. Insol. Act. We have however examined the records and heard learned Counsel for the appellant with a view to seeing, whether either of these matters require to be examined as a revision. In regard to No. 10 of 1929, the insolvent Sarbhulal complains of an order adjudicating him an insolvent. This order was passed on the application of a creditor Mahesh Das. Mahesh Das sued on the mortgage executed by Sarbhulal and obtained a preliminary mortgage decree. It was open to Mahesh Das to have a final decree for sale prepared on this preliminary decree. Instead of doing so he made an application to the insolvent Court on 30th August 1928 to have his judgment-debtor Sarbhulal adjudged an insolvent.. This was based on an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »