Allahabad Court April 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.
Harpal Singh Vs. Ram Paltan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.730
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen embraces two shares--a two pies share and a three pies share. We are concerned only with the two pies share in this appeal. The history behind the two pies share is as follows: It was owned by one Ram Narain Singh. On his death, he was succeeded by Musammat Sukhrani. She made a usufructuary mortgage by conditional sale on the 13th of July, 1916, for a sum of nearly Rs. 200 in favour of Harpal Singh, the appellant before us. Two persons, the present respondent Ram Paltan Singh and another who were related to Ram Narain Singh as agnates, brought a suit to obtain a declaration that the mortgage of 1916 made by Musammat Sukhrani was not for legal necessity and was not binding on the reversioners for the time being. In the relief, he wever, it appears, they said that the deed would not be binding on the plaintiffs. The result of the suit was that the learned Munsif before whom the case was, found that the mortgage was supported by legal necess...
Banwari Jogi Vs. Jamna Kasaudhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.587
1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge remanding the case to the first Court for a trial de novo. The suit was one for a declaration of title and for possession of land by demolition of certain constructions on it. One of the points in dispute was whether the constructions were old or new. On the 22nd of March, 1928, a joint application signed by the Pleaders for both the parties was filed before the learned Munsif in which they agreed that the Court should personally inspect the locality, and might ask the parties to produce any further evidence which it considered necessary, and then record a judgment which should be acceptable to both the parties in every way. After this agreement the Court; made the local inspection and took such steps as it considered necessary and then pronounced its judgments. In the body of the judgment the learned Munsif has referred to this agreement and has stated that the parties undertook to abide by the decision of the Court if it was ma...
Rajkumar Vs. Mangad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All577a
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has no force and has been filed mainly in the interests of the next friend who was responsible for the suit.2. The ostensible plaintiff to the suit was a minor Rajkumar on whose behalf the appeal is. His father Lachhman Das executed two mortgages in respect of the other defendants and on these mortgages decrees have been obtained by the mortgagees and the property has been advertised for sale. The plaintiff's case was that the property was the joint family property of himself and his father Lachhman Das and the mortgages having been executed without legal necessity, could not support the decrees and the property could not be sold.3. The defence was that the property was the self-acquired property of Lachhman Das, that he got it under a settlement made by his maternal grandmother and the plaintiff had no interest in the property. The defendants also urged in the written statement that the suit was a frivolous one and had been brought only to harass the defendan...
Unao Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Mohar Gobind Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All659; 129Ind.Cas.382
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by the Unao Commercial Bank Limited arising out of certain execution proceedings under the following circumstances: Mohar Gobind Rai and Inderjit Gobind Rai were indebted to one Sheo Nandan Prasad who held a decree against them, The Unao Commercial Bank as well as the Punjab National Bank held money decrees against Sheo Nandan Prasad. The Unao Commercial Bank in execution of its own decree attached Sheo Nandan's decree against the original judgment-debtors Mohar Gobind Rai and Inderjit Gobind Rai. The Punjab National Bank also applied for execution and attached the same decree which was in execution at that time in Cawnpore. Later on the Unao Commercial Bank applied to the Cawnpore Court for the transfer of the execution to Gorakhpur where properties belonging to the original judgment-debtors were situated. The Punjab National Bank did not make any separate application but the Court, in its certificate of transfer, noted that the said decree of Sheo Nar...
Lala Ulfat Rai Vs. Lala Tulshi Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.581
1. This appeal has been filed from an order of the District Judge remanding the case to the trial Court. The Court of first instance held that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and ordered that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The order was obviously passed under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Au appeal was preferred by the plaintiff to the District Judge which was an appeal expressly allowed by Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (a). The learned District Judge has taken a contrary view and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. He has accordingly remanded the case which is an order passed by him in appeal. Section 104, Sub-section (2) expressly prohibits any further appeal from this order. The case is covered fully by the ruling in Naubat Singh v. Baldeo Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 666 : 33 A. 479 : 8 A.L.J. 12. As the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to dispose of the matter and has not acted with any mate...
(Chaudhri) Pahunchi Lal Vs. Bhup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All558
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. A preliminary point has been taken that no appeal is maintainable inasmuch as the learned Judge who pronounced the judgment did not grant leave to file an appeal as required by Section 10, Letters Patent, as recently amended. It has further been urged that the rule framed by the High Court as regards grant of leave to file a Letters Patent appeal is partially ultra vires of the High Court.2. It appears that the judgment was delivered by Ashworth, J., on 12th March 1929. No application to obtain a certificate to the effect that the case was a 'fit one for appeal' was made before the learned Judge. An application was later on made before the learned Chief Justice of the Court in pursuance of Rule 6-C, para. 2, Chap. 3 of the Rules of the Court, and on his granting such a certificate the appeal was filed.3. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that the rules framed by the High Court were ...
Raghukul Tilak Vs. Pitam Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All99
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and it has arisen out of the following facts: The appellant Raghukul Tilak sold certain properties of his to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants respondants for a sum of Rs. 26,000 on 12th September 1919. The plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 8,000 in cash for the same and left the balance of the purchase money with the vendees for payment to certain creditors of his. Among these creditors was one Jamna Das with whom certain properties not sold to the vendees had been mortgaged to secure the loan. The purchasers did not pay Jamna Das and the result was that Jamna Das brought a suit for sale of the property mortgaged to him in 1921 and obtained a decree against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 8,927, mortgage money and costs, in all Rs. 9,935. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen, viz.. Suit No. 656 of 1921 for recovery from the defendants of the sum of Rs. 9,935, for which a decree had been obtained b...
Mahadeo Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Mathura Chaudhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All589
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 18th March 1918, executed by Lal Bahadur Singh in favour of Mathura Chaudhari for Rs. 15,925. The defendants were the sons of the deceased mortgagor. The main ground on which they contested the claim was that in view of an agreement between the parties dated 25th December 1920 the plaintiff's suit was premature and was not maintainable. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the agreement in question was void and wholly inoperative and was therefore no bar to the present claim.2. On 25th December 1920 Rs. 19,459-14-0 in all were due on the previous mortgage of 1918. On that date a sale deed was executed of certain property by the heirs of the mortgagor in lieu of Rupees 11,500, and for the balance of Rupees 7,949-14-0 the parties entered into an agreement which is printed on p. 19. The execution of the sale-deed in lieu of Rs. 11,500 is referred to in t...
Pittam Singh and ors. Vs. Hukum Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All621
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by Pittam Singh and others, defendants, against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court passed on 19th April 1929, in review of his former judgment in second appeal passed on 6th November 1928. The facts are that there was a dispute in regard to two khasra numbers between the parties, Hukum Singh on the one side and Pittam Singh on the other. Hukum Singh brought a suit No. 109 of 1925 in the Court of the Munsif and obtained a decree, but the Court of first appeal dismissed the suit of Hukum Singh and the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal of Hukum Singh on 6th November 1928. Meanwhile Pitam Singh had brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for the same two numbers, suit No. 599 of 1925, in which he obtained a decree but the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit and there was a second appeal filed by Pittam Singh, No. 913 of 1927. That second appeal of Pittam Singh came before a Bench of two J...
Ram Deo Ram Vs. Mr. Frank Coombs and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All627
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff Earn Dao Ram against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his appeal. The circumstances are that Zalim Singh obtained a final mortgage decree on 6th March 1914 and to that mortgage decree Mr. Coombs was a party as being a subsequent mortgagee. Zalim Singh then transferred his rights as decree-holder to Earn Deo Earn on a date which is not mentioned. The proper procedure for the plaintiff Earn Deo Earn under Order 21, Rule 16 would have been to have a notice issued to Mr. Coombs as one of the judgment-debtors of the transfer and the rule states:The decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objection if any to the execution.2. But in the present case it is admitted that the plaintiff only had notice issued to the original mortgagor and no notice was issued to Mr. Coombs, the subsequent mortgagee. In execution proceedings the property was put up to auction sale on 20th September 1923,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »