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.
Ram Das Vs. Parmanandgir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All238
Mears, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 10, Letters Patent Act, and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage which was created under a registered instrument dated 30th December 1895.2. Sheobalak, Sheoratan, Ranjit Ram and Bhagwati Prasad were members of a joint Hindu family and owned a zamindari share consisting of 1 ' anna 15 gandas in mauza Tingrahi. This zamindari share included certain sir plots having an area of 6 bighas 16 biswas. On 20th July 1867 Sheobalak and Sheoratan made a usufructuary mortgage of the zamindari share referred to above (but not the sir lands appertaining to the zamindari) in favour of Mahipal and Sheo Bandhan. On 30th December 1895 Sheobalak and Mt. Ananti who was the. widow of Sheoratan and mother and guardian of Rajit Ram, Bhagwati Prasad and Mt. Atasi executed a usufructuary mortgage of the entire sir lands in favour of Ram Chandra Das for Rs. 140.3. Under a sale deed dated 20th January 1900 the mortgagees of the zamindari ...
Babu Ram Das Vs. Mahant Parmanand Gir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.45
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 10 of the Letters Patent and arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage which was created under a registered instrument dated the 30th of December, 1895.2. Sheobalak, Sheonarain, Rajit Ram and Bhagwati Prasad were members of a joint Hindu family and owned a zemindari share consisting of one anna 15 gandas in Mouza Tingrahi. This zemindari share included certain sir plots having an area of 6 bighas 16 biswas. On the 20th of July, 1867, Sheobalak and Sheoratan made a usufructuary mortgage of the zemindari share referred to above (but not the sir lands appertaining to the zemindari) in favour of Mahipal and Shoe Bandhan. On the 30th of December, 1895, Sheobalak and Musammat Ananti, who was the widow of Sheoratan and mother and guardian of Rajit Ram, Bhagwati Prasad and Musammat Atasi executed a usufructuary mortgage of the entire sir lands in favour of Ram Chandra Das for Rs. 140.3. Under a sale-deed dated the 20th of Jaunary, 190...
Khaderu Chamar Vs. Sri Nath Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All198; 129Ind.Cas.553
Dalal, J.1. Both parties appear to have come to Court with wrong allegations. The defendant was holding the post of a Gorait in the Gorakhpur District. The landholders of that district were at a certain period not required to maintain Goraits, so an Act, No. 1 of 1919, Local, was passed by the Local Government to make provision for the rent-free holdings possessed at the time by Goraits in lieu of service. 'Under the provisions of Section 4 (3) of that Act the defendant was declared to be a non-occupancy tenant on a certain rent for a period of seven years from 1327 Fasli. The period expired in 1333 Fasli corresponding to April 1926. The case of the plaintiff zamindar was that in April 1926 he took possession of the land and subsequently the defendant forcibly ejected him and trespassed on the land. On this allegation the plaintiff came to the civil Court to eject the defendant. The defence was that on the expiry of the period of seven years all the zamindars gave a fresh tenancy to th...
Mohammad HusaIn Vs. Mt. Nanhi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All242
Mukerji, J. 1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by a learned Munsif, dated 1st April 1930, by which he set aside an award and directed that the suit should proceed in his Court. It appears that the plaintiff paid off a certain debt due by these persons, Mt. Nanhi and her two children Amir Husain and Allah Dei as the heirs of Chhedda. The debt was a mortgage debt for Rs. 500 and the plaintiff paid off the debt on the assurance that his nephew would be married by the mother to the daughter and the mother would relinquish her share in the inheritance in favour of Mt. Allah Dei, the proposed wife of the plaintiff's nephew. After the payment, the negotiations fell through and the plaintiff brought this suit out of which this revision has arisen. During the course of the hearing Amir Husain died, and he was succeeded by his mother's sister and paternal uncle Saddu, a brother of Chhedda, the father and mortgagor. It was agreed that there should be a reference to arbi...
Har Bilas Vs. Mahadeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All539
Kendall, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit for a perpetual injunction and for damages for breach of contract. The parties had entered into a contract by which the defendant-appellant agreed to sell silica sand to the plaintiff-respondent under conditions of which the essential ones are as follows:1. That the defendant undertook not to sell silica sand to four specified factories.2. That he should sell it to the plaintiff at a specified rate and get it loaded in a wagon.3. That he should supply 2,068 maunds of white sand per mensem at the currant rate and get it loaded.4. That if the defendant should sell silica sand to any of the four factories named he should pay damages at the rate of Rs. 100 per wagon of sand so sold.5. That the plaintiff should pay in cash the price of the sand between the 20th November and the 19th December 1927 at the time of loading the goods and thereafter should pay an advance of Rs. 400 on 20th December 1927 as earnest money.6. That the contract was ...
Lachhman Singh Vs. Todar Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All252
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract said to have . been entered into between the plaintiff Lachhman Singh and Bageshri Dayal, The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that the letter referred to in para. 2 of the plaint, dated 3rd February 1921, was inadmissible in evidence and no contract; between the parties could be proved.2. It appears that Bageshri Dayal died in the year 1922 and was succeeded by Todar Mal and Birumal, defendants first party. On 23rd October 1925 Todarmal and Birumal executed a lease in favour of Baijnath and others, defendants second party. After the execution of the lease in their favour defendants second party applied to the revenue Court to have their names entered in the revenue papers. Lachhman Singh plaintiff objected, but his objections were disallowed and the names of Bajjnath and others were entered as lessees: hence the suit by Lachhman Singh.3. The defence to the action among other...
Ram Lal and anr. Vs. Shiama Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All275
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal is bound to succeed. The plaintiffs are mortgagees under a simple mortgage dated 19th January 1920. They obtained as their security besides other properties, two groves. The groves were transferred by way of mortgage and sale in favour of the defendants other than the mortgagors who figured as defendants 1 and '2 in the suit. One of the transferees raised the plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to bring the groves to sale. The reason was that at the date of the mortgage, the mortgagors Madho Singh and Bahadur had not got a sale deed in respect of the two groves in their favour. The sale deed in their favour was executed five days later on 24th January, 1920. It appears that a certain Hindu owned the groves. On his death, they were inherited by his wife Mt. Sukhrani. Mt. Sukhrani sold the groves to one Azizuddin. The mortgagors claiming as reversioners contested the sale, but ultimately, finding that they could not successfully contest the sale, they agr...
Mt. Ashraf Zadi Begam and anr. Vs. Lalta Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All338
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiff, Mt. Ashraf Zadi, wife of Aziz Alam, sued one Lalta Prasad, transferee of her husband's property for enforcement of a charge by sale of the property. Under a registered deed the husband had promised to pay his wife Rs. 4 a month by way of maintenance in case there was disunion between himself and her, and she resided in his house. He further stipulated that if he did not pay the maintenance monthly the amount shall be realized from him by suit. The property was hypothecated (mustaghraq o kafil) for further assurance. What he agreed was that he would not execute any deed of sale or gift or alienate the property and that such a document would be void if he did so. He called the security a ' zamanatnamah.' It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that this document created an interest in the property and that therefore she was entitled to recover the money by sale of the property. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that no interest in the propert...
Balbhaddra Upadhya Vs. Sheomangal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All347
Dalal, J.1. The suit was for sale on foot of a mortgage of 1st June 1916. Other transactions with respect to the property were a usufructuary mortgage by the mortgagor in favour of the defendant-appellant Balbhaddar dated 27th May 1912, which was prior to the deed in suit and another usufructuary mortgage of 30th August 1921, which was subsequent to the mortgage in suit. There was a dispute in the Subordinate Court as to the second mortgage which was in favour of Balbhaddar; ostensibly it is in favour of his grandsons. There is the finding in favour of the plaintiff that the real mortgagee was Balbhaddar, That is a finding of fact, so it may be assumed for the purposes of this appeal that the second mortgage also was in favour of Balbhaddar. Under the second mortgage out of' the entire consideration of Rs. 1425, Rs. 790 was left with the mortgagee to pay to the plaintiff of the present suit, and Rs. 499 towards the 1912 mortgage. Balbhaddar did not pay off the plaintiff, and that is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›