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.
Gajanand Sita Ram Vs. Phul Chand Fateh Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All675
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises from an order, dated 7th May 1928, passed by the learned District Judge of Cawnpore setting aside two separate awards made by two arbitrators appointed by the parties.2. Messrs. Phul Chand Fateh Chand, the respondents, agreed to purchase and Messrs. Gajanand Sita Ram, the applicants, agreed to sell, on 23rd March 1918, 45 bales of mulls. The latter expected to be able to supply the 45 bales which they agreed to sell as Banarsi Das & Co., who are not parties to this case, in their turn, had agreed to supply that commodity to the appellants. Banarsi Das & Co. failed to perform their part of the contract with the appellant, with the result that the latter could not fulfil their undertaking with the respondents. The agreement between the parties to this ease is evidenced by an indent signed by the respondents. It is on a printed form, which appears to be in vogue in the commercial circle at Cawnpore. One of the conditions stipulated for in the indent is...
Raghunandan Prasad and anr. Vs. Ajodhya Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All869; 129Ind.Cas.378
1. This and the connected Second Appeal No. 1071 of 1927 arises out of the same suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration of their exclusive right to recover rent of 1553 acres of land detailed in list (6) at foot of the plaint as land appertaining to the share of 8 annas held by them in mortgagee-possession. The Court of first instance decreed the suit in its entirety. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed it. The appeals were preferred in the lower Appellate Court one by all the five defendants to the action and the other only by Sheobadan Singh, defendant No. 2 and Baijnath Singh, defendant No. 3, Both the appeals having been allowed by the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff had to file two appeals. The connected Appeal No. 1271 is from the decree of the lower Appellate Court passed in the appeal preferred by Sheobadan Singh and Baijnath Singh. It relates only to five plots to which the decree in Suit No. 230 of 1921, passed by the Munsif of Kirakat relates. Th...
Baijnath Singh Vs. Lala Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All543
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of interest. Rana Raj Kumar Lal was indebted to the plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. 60,000 under a promissory note executed by him. Admittedly the whole amount of the principal plus interest due on this promissory note on 28th February 1921 came to Rs. 67,306-13-6. The correspondence which passed between the plaintiffs and the present defendant goes to suggest that the defendant either was in some way responsible for the payment of this money or at any rate agreed to see that the payment was made. The plaintiffs, however, insisted on the immediate payment of the amount due, and the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs to give the Rana more time. The plaintiffs replied saying that they could not wait, as the original rate of interest, viz: 0-8-6% per mensem, was inadequate, and that if the defendant did not reply they would presume that he was agreeable to 9% per annum being charged (p. 16). The defendant replied...
Moti Chand and ors. Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All638
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holders' appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. A preliminary objection is 'taken to the hearing of this appeal. It will be convenient to give the facts of this case before disposing of this objection. In 1913 a mortgage-deed was executed in favour of Raja Moti Chand by Dr. Bageshwari Narain and others for a large sum of money hypothecating several properties including a house described as house No. 40 in Chowk Allahabad. Three-fourths share in this house was subsequently purchased by Lala Madho Prasad. A suit was instituted on 17th August 1920 on the basis of this mortgage deed and was decreed in part by the first Court. Both parties appealed to the High Court where there was a compromise decree on 12th March 1926. Under this compromise it was agreed among other things that Mahabir Prasad would pay Rs. 13,500 to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs would exempt the three-fourths share in this house which had been purchased by him. A decree wa...
Raja Moti Chand and ors. Vs. Mahabir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.581a
1. This is a decree-holders' appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal. It will be convenient to give the facts of this case before disposing of this objection.2. In 1913 a mortgage-deed was executed in favour of Raja Moti Chand by Dr. Bageshwari Narain and others for a large sum of money hypothecating several properties including a house described as house No. 40 in Chowk Allahabad. Three-fourths share in this house was subsequently purchased by Lala Madho Prasad, A suit was instituted on the 17th of August, 1920, on the basis of this mortgage-deed and was decreed in part by the first Court. Both parties appealed to the High Court where there was a compromise decree on the 12th of March. 1926. Under this compromise it was agreed among other things that Mahabir Prasad would pay Rs. 13,500 to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs would exempt the three-fourths share in this house which had been purchased by him. A dec...
Khub Chand and ors. Vs. Chittar Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All372
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts against them on the allegation that Khub Chand defendant 1, for himself and as the managing member of the defendants' family was the agent of the plaintiff. According to the plaint the plaintiff's ancestors were residents of Shikarpur although they were carrying, on business at Haldwani and Chiter Mal plaintiff was a connexion by marriage of Khub Chand. About the year 1904 the defendant suggested to the plaintiff that he might, through him, start money-lending business and make investments in properties in the district of Bulandshahr, to which the plaintiff agreed. He sent about Rs. 20,000 to the defendant who obtained documents mostly in his own name except one for Rs. 10,000 which was taken jointly in the name of the plaintiff and his uncle, as well as the defendant Khub Chand. According to the plaintiff the defendant did not render account to him but put him off.2. In the written statement th...
Ali Asmat Shakur Vs. G.i.P. Ry. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All476
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under the following circumstances. Firm Ishwar Das and Company, sent to the firm Ali Asmat Shakur in the district of Azamgarh certain artificial silk goods which was carried over the G.I.P. Ry., E.I.R. and B. and N.W. Rail-ways. The goods were not delivered and the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the price of the goods on the ground of 'non-delivery.'2. Various defences were raised on behalf of the three railways, but we are now concerned only with the defence of the Secretary of State for India in Council, as admittedly the G.I.P. Railway and the E.I. Railway are owned by the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff not having served a notice which com plied with the provisions of Section 80, Civil P. C, the suit was not maintainable. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the Additional Subordinate Judge on appeal. The plaintiff has come up in appe...
Mt. Khairunnissa Bibi Vs. Mt. Khairunnissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All478
Dalal, J.1. The plaintiffs are four daughters of one Khatun Bibi who died during partition proceedings in a revenue Court. Defendant 1 to this suit, Mt. Khairunnissa, was the applicant for partition and on the death of Khatun Bibi the name of her son Shamsul-Huda was substituted on the record. He being a minor his uncle Hafizullah was appointed guardian. The names of the plaintiffs, daughters of Khatun, were not substituted. The partition was completed and the defendant Khairunnissa obtained separate possession of her 13 1/2 annas share and also separate possession of a plot 989. The plaintiffs brought the present suit for recovery of their shares of three pies in the zamindari property and four sihams out of 16 in plot 989. Their suit was decreed and hence defendant 1 Khairaanissa has appealed. The lower appellate Court unnecessarily varied the decree of the trial Court and gave the father and brother of the plaintiffs also a share in plot 989. This, however, does not in any way preju...
Bachu Lal and ors. Vs. L. Dharam Deo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All656
Dalal, J.1. In my opinion no revision lies. The only power of revision given to the High Court is by Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act.The High Court may call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court and if such subordinate revenue Court appears:(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit.2. In the present case the District Judge has made a remand under Order 41, Rule 23 to the Assistant Collector and this order in remand is sought to be revised by this Court. Previously it appears that counsel made an attempt to lodge an appeal from such an order just as on the civil side an appeal from such an order is...
Sheikh Gausi and ors. Vs. Mohammad Sharif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All793
Sen, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal, lie within a very narrow compass. On 4th June 1926, Mulu executed a deed of gift in favour of Mohammad Sharif Khan, his maternal grandson. The deed of gift comprised three kinds of property, (a) a house, (b) a kolhu and (c) shares in 14 plots. The last mentioned property forms part of a fixed rate holding, held by Mulu, jointly with Gausi and others.2. The defendants did not allow the plaintiff to take possession of this property; hence the suit for a declaration of title to a one-third share out of 3.96 in the fixed rate holding with a prayer for possession in the alternative.3. The suit was resisted mainly upon the ground that the donor had not delivered possession to the donee under the deed of gift, and that no valid title had passed to the plaintiff. The Court of first instance repelled this plea and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession. The lower appellate Court has affirmed this decision.4. The main contention put f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »