Allahabad Court December 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.
Ratan Singh Vs. Pirbhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All302; 131Ind.Cas.135
Sulaiman, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for recovery of money due or accounts. The sum due from the defendants to the plaintiff was the sum of Rs. 2,341. That this sum was due am owing by the defendant to the plaintiff is not disputed. But the defendant relied upon the statute of limitation and alleged that the last debited entry in the account was dated 22nd February 1923 and the account was settled on 27th of the same month, and that therefore time began to run from the latter date. The suit was brought on 18th January 1927, so limitation would have expired except for an unconditional acknowledgment by the defendant intervening. The plaintiff alleged that there was such an acknowledgment which was dated 25th June 1924, and if the plaintiff's contention on this point is correct, the suit of course would be within time. The learned Judge in the Court below has come to the conclusion that this is an acknowledgment which saves limitation. He has repelled the contention of the defe...
Satya Nidhan Banerji Vs. Muhammad Hazubber Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All533
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur by which ha refused to restore an appeal which had been dismissed by him for default.2. The preliminary point that arises is whether the appeal is competent.3. It appears to us that Section 249, Agra Tenancy Act, being Act 3 of 1926, is conclusive on the point.4. Section 249 runs as follows:No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal.5. There can be no doubt that the order which is complained of is an order passed in appeal. When an appeal is pending before a Judge any order that is passed with reference to that appeal must be an ' order passed in appeal. In this particular case the learned Judge was not seised of any original suit or proceeding. He was exercising his appellate jurisdiction and the order complained of must necessarily therefore be an order passed in appeal.6. If we look to the entire scheme of the Tenancy Act, 1926, we find that it starts with the heading, 'Appeal...
Sri Sheoji Maharaj Sarbarakar Baldeo Gir Vs. Beni Madho and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All415; 131Ind.Cas.33
Bennet, J.1. This purports to be a first appeal from an order passed in appeal by the learned District Judge of Azamgarh. The case was a case in a revenue Court being a suit for profits under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926. The appellant before us is the defendant. The lower appellate Court set aside the decree of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for assessing profits under Order 41, Rule 23, Civil P.C. Under Section 249, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, ' no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal.' Accordingly no appeal lies to this Court. We may point out that appeals which lie to this Court under the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 are either appeals from original decrees under Section 242 or appeals from appellate decrees' under Section 246. The Act definitely states in Section 249 that there shall be no appeal from orders passed in appeal. An order of remand is an order passed in appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal does not lie...
Ram Sewak Kueri Vs. Ram Rup Teli and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All537
Bennet, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order of remand by a lower appellate Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage bond executed on 12th May 1912 by Muneshwar, the father of the defendant in favour of Bihari Lal, the predecessor of the plaintiff for Rs. 400. This bond provided for interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent; per mensem, and it further provided that interest would be paid yearly. There was no stipulation in the bond for the payment of compound interest. The bond provided that the principal would be paid within five years. The defence which has been urged before us is that the bond is time barred because the period of limitation should run from the end of the first year, that is, 12th May 1913 when as is admitted, no interest was paid. The suit was not brought until 9th April 1929, and this is within a period of 12 years from the date when the principal money became due under the bond, that is, 12th May 1917. The question ther...
Mt. Maimuna Begam Vs. Sharafat Ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All403
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dower instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is common ground that the plaintiff's dower was fixed at Rs. 35,000 at the date of the marriage which took place on 21st March 1920. The plaintiff's case was that the prompt portion of her dower should be treated as one-half of the total dower and this should be decreed to her with arrears of interest. She said that she had demanded payment at the end of 1924 and in the middle of January 1925. She accordingly claimed a sum of rupees 1,930 as arrears of interest.2. The defence was that no particular portion of the dower had been declared to be prompt at the time of the marriage, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest.3. The lower Court held that it was in the discretion of the Court having regard to all the circumstances of the case to say what proportion of the entire dower should be allowed as the prompt dower. The learned Judge refused any interest and decre...
Bibi Maimuna Begam Vs. Sharafat Ullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.115
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for dower instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. It is common ground that (he plaintiff's dower was fixed at Rs. 35,000 at the date of the marriage which took place on 21st March, l920. The plaintiff's case was that, the prompt portion of her dower should be treated as one-half of the total dower and this should be decreed to her with arrears of interest, She said that she had demanded payment at the end of 1924 and in the middle of January, 1925. She accordingly claimed a sum of Rs.1,930 as arrears of interest.2. The defence was that no particular portion of the dower had been declared to be prompt at the time of the marriage, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest.3. The lower Court held that it was in the discretion of the Court having regard to all the circumstances of the case to say what proportion of the entire dower should be allowed as the prompt dower. The learned Judge refused to any interest and decreed the cl...
Abdul Qayum Khan Vs. City Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All147
Mukerji, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Dahra Dun under the following circumstances: In Mussoorie, which is within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, a gentleman described as the Raja Sahib of Amawan, put in an application before the Municipal Board for permission to make certain additions and alterations to a hou3e which he had purchased. This house was known as Cecil Hotel and apparently was used as an hotel before the purchase. Adjacent to the building purchased by the Raja of Amawan, is a house known as Ivy Cottage, which is owned by one Sardar Abdul Qayum Khan, a political detenue. That building has been obtained on lease by one Sardar Bhagat Singh and is being used as an hotel and has been called ' The Grand Indian Hotel.' The Raja Sahib of Amawan, among other alterations, constructed a bathroom at the north-west corner of his house. The estate owned by the Raja Sahib of Amawan, it appears, is on a much higher level than the estate Ivy Cot...
Suraj Prasad Vs. Oudh Behari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All216
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant-vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre emption brought by three plaintiffs, Oudh Behari Lal, Tapeshri Prasad and Mahadeo Prasad. The first two are own brothers and presumably members of a joint Hindu family. According to the allegations in the plaint plaintiff 3 is a cosharer with a distinct and separate share of his own. The sale deed was executed on 6th March 1925. The connected appeal arises out of a suit to pre-empt a transaction which according to the plaintiffs, was evidenced by a deed of gift of 19th December 1925 and a sale-deed of 21st December 1925, both of which ware registered on the same day. The claim was resisted on the ground that the defendant had become a cosharer by virtue of this deed of gift and also on the ground that the plaintiffs had refused to purchase the property. The lower appellate Court has overruled both these objections and decreed the claim.2. It has held that the two deeds of December 1925 were part and parcel...
Bhukhan Saran Vs. Piare Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All218
1. The question under appeal is a very short one and it is whether the order of the execution Court, by which it was held that the property sought to be sold was ancestral, operates as res judicata between the parties or not.2. It appears that in execution of a mortgage decree the respondent applied for sale of the property mortgaged. The first question that had to be determined by the executing Court was the nature of the property sought to be sold, under Rule 107, Order 21, Civil P.C. The Court had to fix a date for the trial of the question, namely whether the property was ancestral or non-ancestral and to decide the question on that date. To aid itself in deciding the question it was open to the Court to call for a report from the Collector.' It appears that a report was sent for from the Collector and he reported that the property was ancestral. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the executing Court declared on 11th August 1928 that the property was ancestral and it d...
Anand Krishna Vs. Kishan Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All377
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a point of law for which no authority either way has been produced before us. The point has to be decided on general principles. It appears that the respondent Mt. Kishan Devi held a decree for money for a large amount against four persons, the appellant Anand Krishna and his brother Raj Bahadur Krishna, Shiam Krishna and their mother Mt. Kishan Devi. At one stage of the execution a certain house was attached as the property of the judgment-debtors and was sold on 24th August 1922. It was purchased by the decree-holder Mt. Kishan Devi, and the sale was in due course confirmed, The sale was however contested by a suit by one Jagmohan Swarup, who claimed to have purchased a half-share in the property, being the share belonging to the judgment-debtors' ancestors brother Badri Krishna. The suit succeeded with the result that Mt. Kishan Devi lost a half-share in the property purchased by her.2. By the application for execution out of which this appeal has ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »