Allahabad Court February 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 Sundar Mal and ors. Vs. Collector of Gorakhpur and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All797
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of four villages together with a sitting room called nashistagah. The suit relates to a part of the estate known as Majhauli Raj. The plaintiffs in the suit are transferees from Balbhaddar, who claimed through his deceased father Indarjit to have succeeded to this estate. Two suits had been filed, viz., suit No. 20 and suit No. 21 of 1923, the first one by the claimant Balbhaddar himself and the second by his transferees. The main suit which related to the bulk of the estate was compromised. The present appeal arises out of the second suit No. 21.2. In the plaint it was stated that Majhauli estate is a very ancient impartible estate, which was founded by Raja Bishwa Sen a long time ago. A long genealogical table was attached to the plaint which shows that the claimant is more than 100 generations from the founder, whose time might very well go back 2,000 years. The last male holder was Raja Kau...
Sheonandan Prasad Vs. Mt. Tahiran Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All860
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, and the question on which decision was given by that learned Judge was one of limitation alone. It appears that there was a family of which one Sital was the father. His wife was Mt. Sumari, and his three sons wore Debi Prasad, Nandan and Sheonandan. After the death of Sital two transfers were executed by way of sale, one in 1908 and the other in 1909. By these documents Debi Prasad and the mother Sumari (Nandan and Sheonandan being minors) purported to transfer certain portions of the family property. This suit was instituted by Sheonandan to set aside the alienation and to recover the property, in 1923. It has been found, among other matters, that at the date of the suit Sheonandan was less than 21, but his elder brother Nandan, who was not one of the vendors, was more than 21. The suit has been dismissed on several grounds, one being that Nandan could give a valid discharge as the head of a...
Sheopati Singh and ors. Vs. Jagdeo Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All95
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,000, the principal amount of mortgage-money, and Rs. 6,000 as damages on account of a breach of contract. It appears that on 23rd September 1922, the plaintiffs Jagdeo Singh and Bishnath Singh, father and son, executed a document which represented a compound transaction of sale and mortgage for Rs. 20,050 in favour of the defendants-appellants. This deed is printed at page 35. Under it 5 annas 21/2 pies share in Mudila Khurd in all was transferred, out of which 2 annas 1 pie share was sold for Rs. 11,050 and the remaining 3 annas 11/2 pies share was mortgaged with possession for a period of twelve years in lieu of Rs. 9,000. The payment of consideration was not split up for the two transactions of sale and mortgage separately, but was stated as a consolidated sum of Rs. 20,050. Out of this amount the mortgagees had to pay Rs. 12,000 to one Ram Krishan a previous mortgagee of the property not covered by this de...
Jai Pratap NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Rabi Pratap NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All442
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870.2. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition of certain property upon the allegation that he and the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family who were jointly in possession of the property in suit. The plaintiff prayed that his share in the joint family property should be determined and partitioned and that he should be put in separate possession thereof. The suit was valued at Rs. 4,00,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction and he paid a court fee of Rs. 10 under Article 17(6), Sch. 2.3. The defendants in their written statement traversed the principal allegations of the plaintiff, denying that the parties were members of a joint Hindu family and denying that the plaintiff was in joint possession of the property in suit. One of the pleas raised by the defendants was that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient because he was not in joint possession of the property in suit, and that as the suit was i...
Raghubir Datt Pande and ors. Vs. NaraIn Datt Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All498a
Sen, J.1. The suit which has given case to this appeal was for a declaration that certain property situate in mouza Belwa was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and that the defendants had no title to the same. The plaintiffs alternatively claimed possession.2. Bhagwan Dat Pande had three sons: Narayan Dat Pande, Shankar Dat Pande and Nageshar Dat Pande. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of Nageshwar Dat Pande and plaintiff 4 is the widow of a predeceased son. Defendants 2 to 5 are the daughters' sons and son-in-law of Narayan Dat Pande in whose favour the latter executed a deed of gift of either the entire property in dispute or of a substantial portion thereof.3. Bhagwan Dat Pande was the member of a joint family with his three sons. After his death a disruption ensued. Narayan Dat Pande undoubtedly separated from his brothers, but it is not clear whether any separation took place between Nageshar Dat Pande and Shankar Dat Pande. It is not improbable that Shankar Dat Pande lived in c...
Deo NaraIn Vs. Bhola Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All506
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for redemption of three mortgages two of 3rd February 1916 and a third dated 10th August 1918, executed by defendants 10 and 11 in favour of defendant 1 for Rs. 1,100, 300 and 500, respectively. One of the conditions agreed on was that the mortgagors would not be at liberty to redeem within 54 years. The equity of redemption subsequently passed to the plaintiff by a deed dated 9bh August 1919. The present suit was brought on 30th January 1925 for redemption in disregard of the terms of 54 years already referred to.2. The pleas in defence, which it is necessary to mention for the purpose of this appeal, were:(1) That the suit was premature, and (2) that the mortgagee, not having performed his part of the contract, in that he failed to pay a sum of Rs. 75 to a prior mortgagee, as he ought to have done in terms of the mortgage deed, is not entitled to insist on the term of 54 years stipulated in the mort...
Dr. Bishambhar Sahi Gupta Vs. Babu Shambhu Dayal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All704
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal brought by the plaintiff whose suit for damages for libel has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The sole question before us is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is a medical practitioner of the town of Etawah, and as such he was bound to report to the Municipal Board cases of infectious diseases. The facts, as found proved, are that on 29th January 1924 the plaintiff treated a case of plague, and that on 30th January, he wrote a letter reporting the case to the Municipal Board, and sent that letter to the office of the Board, but as no one was there, the letter was returned. He sent the letter again on 31st January, at 6 p.m., and at that time the Municipal Secretary was absent from the office. The head clerk was in the office, and he received the letter. It was accompanied by a despatch book, and in that despatch book no date for sending this letter was entered. The two letters entered above it are dated as sent on 29th...
Beni Misir Vs. Mahabir Sukla and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All431
Dalal, J.1. The defendant-appellant holds a mortgage of 9th October 1906 under which he is in possession and there is a second document in his favour of 10th September 1907 as to the nature of which there is a dispute. The plaintiff holds two mortgages, one a simple mortgage dated 21st May 1915 and the second a mortgage by way of conditional sale dated 24th February 1927. The document of 10th September 1907 is not registered. The plaintiff had formerly sued on a simple mortgage of 21st May 1915 for redemption, when he obtained information of the document of 10th September 1907 in favour of the defendant. He withdrew that suit because it was premature by reason of the usufructuary mortgage of 1906 in favour of the defendant not having come to an end at the time of the institution of the plaintiff's former suit. In the present suit for redemption the only dispute is whether the plaintiff should be compelled to pay off the document of 10th September 1907 in favour of the defendant or not....
Bajrangi Misir Vs. Padarath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All504
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for enforcement of a hypothecation bond dated 24th November 1914 executed by Udit Misra, defendant 1, and Lachhman Misra, defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the son of Udit Misra and defendant 4 is the son of Lachhmnan Misra. They were both infants when the mortgage deed was executed. The sum advanced under the deed in suit is Rs. 300. The rate of interest agreed on is 1 per cent per month. The mortgage money is payable in two years time. It is agreed that if interest is not paid at the end of a year it shall be added to the principal, and interest at the contractual rate is to run on the aggregate amount of principal and interest. No payment was made and the sum claimed by the plaintiffs-respondents came to Rs. 1,180-9-0 at the date of the suit, namely, the 30th June 1926.2. The only defences to which it is necessary to refer are: (1) that there was no legal necessity for the loan contr...
Mt. Rasulan Bibi and ors. Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All521
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must be allowed. The facts are briefly these: In execution of a simple money decree obtained by Saheb Din and others decree-holders, against two brothers, Hidayat and Yaqub, a certain property was attached. Thereupon a brother and two sisters and mother of the judgment-debtors preferred an objection in the execution department, claiming their shares on the ground that the property attached was originally the property of the ancestor, Zakir Ali, being the father of the judgment-debtors. It appears that the names of the brothers alone were recorded in the khewat. In that view the share of Yad Ali, namely one-third at any rate, should have been exempted from the sale. It, however, appears to be a fact that the objection failed in the execution department, and the brother, sisters and mother of the judgment-debtors brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, to obtain a declaration that their shares in Zakir Ali's property was not liable to be sold in e...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »