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.
Jai NaraIn and ors. Vs. Rashik Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All546
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for contribution against defendants has been allowed by the lower appellate Court to the extent only of 1/9th instead of 1/2 claimed by the plaintiffs of the sum of Rs. 719.11-0 which the plaintiffs admittedly paid to discharge a 'joint mortgage decree. The facts are that on 17th May 1923 a mortgage deed was executed by Ram Charan Lal, the predecessor-in interest of the plaintiffs, and by his nephew defendant 1 Rashik Behari Lal. On that mortgage-deed the mortgagee Chotey Lal brought a suit No. 321 of 1926, and obtained a decree on 28th August 1926, and he put up for sale a house which belonged jointly to the mortgagors and the plaintiffs had to pay Rs. 719-11-0 in order to get the sale set aside. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for contribution of one-half of that amount and interest against defendant 1 and defendant 2, who is a transferee of the property from defendant 1. The basis of the suit is that in the mortgage d...
Babu Jai NaraIn and ors. Vs. Rashak Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.545
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for contribution against defendants has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court to the extent only of one-ninth instead of one-half claimed by the plaintiffs of the sum of Rs. 7l9-11.0 which the plaintiffs admittetly paid to discharge a joint mortgage decree. The facts are that on 17th'May, 1920, a mortgage-deed was executed by Ram Charan Lal the pre-decessor-in-'interest of the plaintiffs and by his nephew defendant No. 1 Rashik Behari Lal on that mortgage-deed the mortgagee Chotey Lal brought a suit No. 321 of 1926 and obtained a decree on 28th August, 1926, and he put up for sale a house which belonged jointly to the mortgagors and the plaintiffs had to pay Rs. 719 11-0 in order to get the sale Set aside. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for contribution of one-half of that amount and interest against defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, who is a transferee of the property from defendant No. 1. The basis of the suit ...
Haibat Shah Vs. Bohra Tarachand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All235
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon the basis of a mortgage dated 26th August 1912, executed by Jamaiat Shah, Safdar Shah and Saadat Shah alias Nabban, in favour of Tara Chand the plaintiff, to secure a loan of Rs. 500. The mortgagee brought a suit on 25th August 1924 impleading Saadat Shah, one of the mortgagors, and impleading defendants 2-4 as being the heirs of their father Jamait Shah deceased, and also as being heirs of their uncle Safdar Shah deceased.2. The suit was resisted upon various grounds with which we are not concerned in this appeal. During the pendency of the suit aadat Shah alias Nabban. died. He is said to have died on 13th April 1926. No application was made for bringing his legal representative upon the record until 26th January 1927, when the plaintiff made an application stating that Saadat Shah had died and asking for time to ascertain the names of his heirs. On 3rd February 1927 the plaintiff made a fresh application stating that Saadat S...
L. Shiam Lal Vs. Nand Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All355
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr setting aside an order of the District Magistrate under Section 250, Criminal P.C., on the ground that that order had been passed in a case in which the charge was Under Section 307, I. P.C., which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and that Section 250, Criminal P.C., was not applicable. The question raised is not without difficulty. Section 250, Criminal P.C., is included in Chap. 20, which deals with the trials of summons cases by Magistrates, but the section itself comes under the heading ' Frivolous accusations in summons and warrant cases ' and the section itself shows that it applies to all ' offences triable by a Magistrate.' It is however quite clear, nor is the point contested before me, that the section cannot be applied in cases triable by a Court of Session. What has been argued before me is that the present case was not really a case under Section 307, I....
Babu Makund Lal Vs. Bhola Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All419
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of unpaid purchase money together with interest. On 12th July 1926, Bhola Ral and others executed a sale deed of some zamindari share in favour of Rai Bahadur Babu Makund Lal appellant for Rs. 1,608-12-0. Rs. 308-12-0 were paid in cash at the time of registration. Rs. 1,300 were left with the ' vendee for payment of certain creditors.2. It may be incidentally mentioned that the property sold was not burdened with any charge or mortgage in favour of the creditors for whom the sum of Rs. 1,300 was left.3. The defendant vendee did not pay the amount to the creditors within a reasonable time and the result of it was that the present action was instituted on 4th October 1929.4. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 11l, Lim. Act and that the plaintiff had not been compelled to pay the amount to the creditors and that no cause of action had accrued to the plainti...
Rai Bahadur Babu Makund Lal Vs. Bhola Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.686
1. This is an appeal by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of unpaid purchase-money together with interest.2. On the 12th of July, 1926, Bhola Rai and others executed a sale-deed of some zemindari share in favour of Rai Bahadur Babu Makund Lal appellant, for Rs. 1,608-12. Rs. 308-12, were paid in cash at the time of registration. Rs. J,3C0 were left with the vendee for payment of certain creditors.3. It may be incidentally mentioned that the property sold was not burdened with any charge or mortgage in favour of the creditors for whom the sum of Rs. 1,300 was left.4. The defendant vendee did not pay the amount to the creditors within a reasonable time and the result of it was that the present action was instituted on the 4th of October, 1929.5. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Article 111 of the Limitation Act and that the plaintiff had not been compelled to pay the amount to the creditors and that no cause of action had acc...
Rupai Rai and ors. Vs. Murat Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.678
1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder arising out of an application for execution of a decree, dated 15th May, 1924.2. On the 18th of March, 1921, a decree was passed in favour of Rupai Rai and others from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur in Suit No. 126 of 1920. This decree was upset on appeal by the lower Appellate Court on the 7th of April, 1922. There was an appeal to this Court which reversed the lower Appellate Court and restored the decree of the trial Court on the 15th May, 1924. The present application is for the execution of the decree, dated 15th May, 1924, affirming the original decree. The first application for execution was made on the 30th April,1927, but was struck off for default of prosecution on the 6th June, 1927. The second application which has given rise to the present appeal was made on the 5th of December, 1927. It was contended by the judgment-debtors that the application, dated the 30th April, 1927, was not a bona fide application and, ther...
B. Madan Mohan Singh Vs. B. Ram Sunder Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All326
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit to recover damages for malicious prosecution. Both the Courts below have dismissed it on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is one of limitation.2. A complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the Court of a Magistrate on 26th May 1924. By an order dated 8th August 1924, the accused was discharged The defendant filed an application before the Sessions Judge for ordering further enquiry under Section 436, Criminal P.C. Notice was issued to the accused to appear and show cause why a retrial should not be ordered. On cause being shown the application was ultimately dismissed on 25th October 1924. The present suit was instituted on 24th October 1925, i.e., more than one year after the order of discharge but within one year of the dismissal of the application by the Sessions Judge.3. Article 23, Lim. Act, admi...
Kashi Ram and ors. Vs. Mt. Hasmat Banoo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All145
Dalal, J.1. This is an appeal in the execution department from a decree of the District Judge of Bareilly passed in appeal. Mt. Hashmat Banoo is the judgment-debtor, and the decree passed against her was for the recovery of money out of the assets of her deceased husband Anwar Husain. For the. purposes of this appeal we need only mention the application for execution of 26th June 1927. In pursuance of this application certain properties were put to auction and were purchased by the decree-holder himself on 20th October 1927. The decree was thereby satisfied on 15th March 1928. Mt. Hashmat Banoo applied to the executing Court for the setting aside of the sale on the ground that she had no notice thereof. Presumbly what was meant was that she was not notified either under Order 21, Rule 22 of the application for execution nor under Order 21, Rule 66 of the date of the preparation of the sale proclamation.' Possibly the two subordinate Courts have taken an indulgent view of the facts of c...
Abdul Qadir Vs. Narendra Mohan Ghose Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All210
Mears, C.J.1. The aim of the applicant in this case has been that this Court should treat an application for revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, on the same footing as a regular first appeal. We do not approve of this. The applicant was a defendant in the action. A suit was instituted against him for recovery of Rs. 645 together with interest on the allegation that the plaintiff had paid that sum of. money to the. defendant on the understanding that the amount represented the price of certain python skins to be supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff. The transaction was by the plaintiff on his own account and not on account of any third party. The defendant received the money, refused to deliver the python skins and also refused to refund the amount received by him. Hence the suit for the recovery of the principal sum together with interest. The suit, was resisted upon the ground that the plaintiff owed the defendant a certain sum of money and that the def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »