Allahabad Court March 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.
Umrao Singh Vs. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All582
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., claiming many reliefs including the removal of the defendant trustee, the rendering of accounts of income and expenditure from 1902 when he took over charge, the appointment of new trustees and the vesting of the trust property in them, as well as other directions said to be necessary. It appears that the defendant took over charge as trustee of this endowed property in 1902 and was managing it without any objection on the part of the other members of his family. In 1915-1916 plaintiff 1, his younger brother, moved the Legal Remembrancer for sanction to file a suit against him. Some inquiry through the Collector was presumably made and the Legal Remembrancer declined to grant the sanction. No suit, therefore, could be instituted; but the defendant certainly became aware that his management was being questioned by his younger brother.2. After the coming into force of Act 14, 1920 the present ...
In Re: Sonardih Coal Co., Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All617
Young, J.1. This is an application of the official liquidators of the Sonardih Coal Co., Ltd. in liquidation, to place the Collector of Mirzapur upon the list of contributories in lieu of Mahant Permanand Gir, who was placed upon the list of contributories on 20th January 1928. On 22nd June 1928, a call of Re. 1-4-0 was ordered by this Court. On 6th August 1928, the contributory not having paid the amount of the call a decree was passed by this Court for the amount, namely Rs. 1,250. Execution proceedings were taken in the Munsif's Court of Mirzapur, and on 17th June 1929 Rs. 735 was collected by way of execution. This left a balance of Rs. 553-8-0, including costs of execution, due from the contributory to the official liquidators. On 24th June 1929. the estate of the contributory was taken over by the Court of Wards and on the 29th June a notice was published in the Gazette under Section 15, Court of Wards Act. In the month of August 1929 notice was given to the Collector of the exis...
Bageswar Tewari Vs. Bikramajit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All785
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Janki Prasad has placed all the rulings before me. They are Mul Kunwar v. Chattar Singh[1908] 30 All. 402, Janak Singh v. Walidad Khan [1915] 13 A.L.J. 669, and Hanwant Rai v. Chandi Prasad A.I.R. l929 All. 293. The question: is Which article will apply: Article 116 or Article 62 when a suit is brought for the recovery of money on failure of consideration? In the present case the plaintiff paid Rs. 50 to the defendants for the consideration of the defendants' relinquishing certain rights. The deed of relinquishment subsequently failed because the defendant's sons brought a suit for declaration that the deed was invalid, and succeeded. According to the rulings the provisions of Article 116 will apply where there is a breach of covenant to indemnify the party suffering against loss caused to him by a defect in the title of the executant of the document. The covenant need not be express. It may be implied as in the ease of a sale under Section 52(2), T.P. Act for the refun...
Gopi Nath and anr. Vs. Rup Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All786
Sulaiman, J.1. A preliminary object the hearing of the appeal has been raised on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents. It is necessary to give the acts briefly in order to consider that objection.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage dead of 1913 against the representatives of the mortgagors and subsequent mortgagees and transferees. The defendants were Kanhaiya Lal, a mortgagee of 1924, and Dr. Gopi Nath, who had purchased part of the property in execution of a simple money decree. Kanhaiya Lal and Gopi Nath both contested the suit in the Court below but the other defendants did not. The suit was decreed. An appeal was filed by Dr. Gopi Nath alone in this High Court against the whole decree, impleading Kanhaiya Lal and the other persons as pro forma respondents.3. During the pendency of the appeal Kanhaiya Lal executed his decree obtained on the basis of his own mortgage, to which however neither the present plaintiffs-respondents nor Gopi Hath was a p...
Bank of Upper India Ltd. Vs. Arif Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All59a
Sen, J.1. Syed Zafar Husain made a fixed deposit of Rs. 800 in the Bank of Upper India Limited at Meerut on 1st March 1910. The deposit was for a period of three months only and the stipulated rate of interest was 3 per cent per annum.2. The fixed deposit receipt which has been exhibited in this case as No. 4 is worded as follows:Received from Syed Zaffar Hussain village Dholri, District Meerut, the sum of Rs. 800 only as a deposit subject to three months' notice of withdrawal bearing interest at 3 per cent per annum from 24th February 1910 payable on 1st January and 1st July of each year.3. Syed Zaffar Hussain died on 10th June 1910. He left a widow Mt. Husain Bandi, a daughter Amtul Zainub, aged about 4 years and a son Arif Husain aged about 2 years. These were his heirs under the Mahomedan law and were entitled to the amount of the deposit together with interest.4. It ought to be noticed that Syed Zaffar Husain died before the fixed deposit had matured for payment.5. Mt. Husain Band...
Bageshwar Tewari Vs. Bikramjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.767
Dalal, J.1. Mr. Janaki Prasad has placed all the rulings before me. They are Mul Kunwar v. Chattar Singh 30 A. 402 : 5 A.L.J. 480, Janak Singh v. Walidad Khan 30 Ind. Cas. 410 : 13 A.L.J. 669 and Hanwant Ral v. Chandi Prasad : AIR1929All293 . The question is which Article will apply, Article 116 or Article 62, when a suit is brought for the recovery of money on failure of consideration. In the present case the plaintiff paid Re. 50, to the defendants for the consideration of the defendants relinquishing certain rights. The deed for relinquishment subsequently failed because the defendants' sons brought a suit for declaration that the deed was invalid and succeeded. According to the rulings the provisions of Article 116 will apply where there is a breach of covenant to indemnify the party suffering against loss caused to him by a defect in the title of the executant of the document. The covenant need not be express. It may be implied as in the case of a sale under Section 52(2) of the T...
S.A. Dange and ors. Vs. S.T. Sheppard and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All483
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application by six of the accused in the Meerut Conspiracy Case drawing the attention of the High Court to the issue of the Times of India dated 25th February 1930, pp. 11 and 17 and praying that a notice be issued to the Editor and the Printer and Publisher, of the said newspaper to show cause why they should not be convicted for contempt of Court.2. If I had thought it a fit case for issuing notice to show cause, I would have directed this matter to be laid before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the constitution of a Bench of three Judges, as has been done in the past in regard to contempt of Court cases. But as I do not propose to take such a step, I think I have jurisdiction as a single Judge under Chap. 1, Rule 1(14) Sub-clause (b), High Court Rules, to dispose of this application when there is no rule expressly requiring it to be made by a Bench of two or more Judges. Also as the application has been sent through the Superintendent of Jail, I can according...
Nilkanth Vs. Rup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All640
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by Nilkanth, defendant, against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts holding him liable to the plaintiffs for profits for the years Rs. 1331 to 1333. The parties are related as follows:Chhatari___________________|_____________________| | | |Nilkanth, Ajudhia Inderjit Sattidindefendant 1 | | defendant 2| |Plaintiffs 3 and 4 Plaintiffs 1 and 22. It is admitted that the plaintiffs and defendants, their uncles, are co-sharers in a patti No. 1, rental Rs. 205-12-0, and that Chhatari was the original owner of the land in question. After his death his widow was entered, and on her death in F. 1331 the names of the parties were entered. Para. 2 of the plaint alleges that the defendants make collections in respect of the said patti No. 1 and pay the Government revenue and cesses, and that the profits are then to be divided between the parties in proportion to the half share which each party owns. This arrangement is admitted in para. 2 of the written s...
Emperor Vs. Padam Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All490
Boys, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government from the acquittal of Padam Singh, son of Mohan Singh, who had been found guilty by the trial Court under Section 193, I.P.C., and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment, but who had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the facts did not come, at any rate did not clearly come, within Sections 191 and 193, I.P.C. Before us two questions have been fully argued, one of law and the other of the merits, and it is incumbent on us to deal with both. The plaintiff in a civil suit was Sher Mohammad Khan. The defendant was the present opposite party, Padam Singh. The suit was brought on the basis of a promissory note said to have been executed by Padam Singh on 15th January 1926, supported by a receipt stated to have been taken from Padam Singh on the same date.2. The suit was brought on 11th August 1928 and was decreed ex parte on 25th September 1928. An application for restoration made on 15th Oc...
Emperor Vs. Sikandar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All532; 125Ind.Cas.585
Young, J.1. Sikandar was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., before the Sessions Judge of Aligarh with having poisoned one Mt. Tufania by administering arsenic to her. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, and the Government has appealed.2. The case for the prosecution was that the accused, who had illicit relations with the deceased woman, and also was in the habit of committing sodomy with her son, because the woman refused to leave the place in which she was then living and go and live with him, administered arsenic to her in gur on 22nd June 1929 and thereafter, within some twenty-four hours, she died as a result of arsenic poisoning.3. The prosecution called three eye-witnesses who deposed that they had seen the accused giving the deceased gur. The witnesses also gave evidence that shortly afterwards the woman became very ill and vomited and purged. There was also on the record the statement of Mt. Tufania herself made to the police, which was admitted in evidence as a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »