Allahabad Court May 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.
Prahlad Singh and anr. Vs. Barumal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All18
Bennet, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs with costs. The two lower Courts had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaint sets forth that Parbhu Dayal, the adopted son of Khushi Ram, was a zamindar and also the owner and in possession of a shop in a village and that under a sale deed of 23rd January 1911, Parbhu Dayal sold the shop together with its site to the plaintiffs and that Mt. Manohari lived in the shop as a ryot at the will of Parbhu Dayal and that she had as a ryot no right of transfer of any sort in the shop; and further that Mt. Manohari executed a sale deed on 16th April 1912, registered on 19th April 1912, by which she sold this shop to the defendant. Accordingly the plaintiffs ask for possession of the shop. In the written statement the defendant set up the case that he had been in possession of the shop under a usufructuary mortgage deed of 23rd Mar...
Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Lallu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All45
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal brought by the plaintiffs against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their appeal and confirming the decrees of the two lower Courts. The family of the plaintiffs is as follows:--------------------| |Bhawani Prasad Raja Ram| || Sheo Parkash|--------|---------------------------------------| | | | |Ram Kishore | Jugul Kishore | Jagdish | | Kishore| |Nand Kishore Shiam Kishore2. By a plaint filed on 16th February 1916, and registered on 18th December 1916, Raja Ram and Sheo Parkash brought a suit for partition (No. 7 of 1916) against the other members of the family. Subsequently there was a second suit for partition, No. 3 of 1918, brought by Nand Kishore which was filed on 18th December 1917. These two partition suits were tried together and a preliminary decree was passed on 6th April 1921, and a final decree on 19th September 1921. A few days after registration of the first partition suit brought by Raja Ram and ...
Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. AminuddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All203
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale instituted by the respondents against the appellants and several others.2. So far back as on 17th May 1912 two persons Manohar and Mt. Chandan Kunwar, since deceased, executed the bond in suit hypothecating immovable property for the sum of Rs. 300, Manohar is alive and was a party to the suit in the Court below. As regards Mt. Chandan Kunwar the plaintiffs' case was that defendant 1 was her daughter but as it was contested by certain people that she was not Mt. Chandan Kunwar's daughter the plaintiffs impleaded the defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 'as reversioners to the estate of Mt. Chandan Kunwar's husband Bechi Lal.3. Several issues were raised in the ease including whether Manohar had any interest in the property mortgaged. The reversioners denied that there was any ' legal necessity for the loan. They pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and they also pleaded that the interest was excessive.4. The learned ...
Harbans Deo Rai Vs. Raj Kumar Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All702
Mukerji, J.1. This second appeal arose under the following circumstances:The respondent Rajkumar Ram brought a suit; for recovery of a small sum of money, viz. Rs. 185, on foot of a simple bond alleged to have been executed by the appellant Harbans Deo Rai. To the suit, besides the prayer for recovery of the sum of Rs. 185, the plaintiff added a prayer for an injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of his immovable property on the ground that he was likely to dispose of the property on hearing of the suit. The suit was not defended. It was decreed so far as the prayer for recovery of money went, but was dismissed as regards the prayer for injunction. The prayer for injunction was obviously a dodge to oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, or to give a right of appeal to the plaintiff if the suit was decided against him. In any case by no conceivable means could the plaintiff have ever thought of there being a chance of his getting an injunction against the defe...
Khunni Mal NaraIn Das Vs. Dwarka Das Baij Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All710
Sen, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act 9 of 1887). Plaintiff applicant instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 406-14-0 principal and Rs. 77-13-0 interest, in all, Rs. 484-11-0, on the allegation that there were certain transactions between the parties about the purchase and sale of silver bars which terminated in a loss to the plaintiff and that the said loss was recoverable from the defendant.2. Plaintiff alleged that he sold 13 bars of silver to the defendant and in his turn purchased four bars from him. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not sell more than four bars to him and that, as a matter of fact, he had sold 13 bars of silver to the plaintiff. The findings of the Court below may be summarized:(1) The defendant purchased 13 bars from the plaintiff and sold four bars to him, and(2) that these transactions were not of the nature of wager.3. The Court below threw out the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff...
Gayan Singh Vs. Harbilas and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All711
Sen, J.1. Hakim Gayan Singh had instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra for rendition of accounts on a dissolution of partnership. The suit was directed against Lala Harbilas and three other defendants. The matter was referred to arbitration and an award was given on 27th July 1927. We do not know when this award was filed in Court; and notwithstanding our pressing for this information we have not been able to elicit the exact date when the award was filed. The Court, however, without waiting for the ten days within which an objection could be preferred to the award, made the award a rule of the Court on 29th July 1927. An appeal was preferred. The lower appellate Court set aside the decree passed on the award and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that notice of the award should be given to the appellant and an opportunity given to him to file an objection to the award if he were so advised, within the period of limitation prescribed by Art...
Acharji Ahir Vs. Harai Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All822
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a question of burden of proof in the following circumstances:The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, brought this suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration of title, and, in the alternative, for possession over three kinds of land. We are no longer concerned with two kinds, but are concerned only with the third kind. It was an occupancy holding consisting of several plots of land recorded in the revenue papers in the name of defendant 1 Gopal. The plaintiff's case was that when these lands were acquired in the name of Gopal the family was a joint one and each and every member of the family, including the plaintiff, who is Gopal's brother's son, had a share in it. The plaintiff further says that there was a partition among the members of the family and certain plots were given to the plaintiff, but because of his possession he was recorded only as a subtenant. The result was that Gopal was able to eject plaintiff from those plot...
(Diwan) Pahar Singh and ors. Vs. Shamsher Jang Bijai Bahadur Singh and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All695
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties. There are a large number of defendants who are transferees under various documents. It appears that Bhola Nath was admittedly the full owner of these properties about 1906 or 1907. He died on 7th March 1907, leaving a widow, Mt. Sughar Dulaiya, and a daughter, Mt. Raja Beti, who was married to Girdhari Lal, defendant 4. Raja Beti had a son, Harakh Chand, who died after Bhola Nath while he was a child of about three years of age. Admittedly before his death Bhola Nath signed a document which is called a deed of adoption, in which there was reference to Harakh Chand being the owner of his property along with his wife. On the death of Bhola Nath the name of Harakh Chand was entered against the zamindari properties in the revenue papers, and after his death the name of Mt. Sughar Dulaiya was entered. We may note that Raja Beti had died in 1908 before the death of Har...
Aidal Singh and ors. Vs. Khazan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All727
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises a rather novel question of law. The facts are simple and are these: Khazan Singh obtained a decree for money on foot of a promissory-note executed by one Bhagwana in his favour. Bhagwana is an agriculturist. In execution of his decree his house and enclosure were attached. His brother objected to the attachment of the entire property, and at his instance one-half was exempted from attachment. Bhagwan himself raised the plea that he was an agriculturist, and under the provisions of Section 60, Civil P.C., the property was not liable to attachment and sale. Unfortunately for him and his sons, there was a default in the prosecution of the objection by Bhagwana and the objection was dismissed. The property has been sold and has been purchased by the decree-holder Khazan Singh himself.2. Soon after the sale, the three sons of Bhagwana and his wife instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The plaintiffs' case was that the house and the gher (h...
Babu Ram Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All33
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises the vexed question of jurisdiction, viz., whether the civil Court or the revenue Court should take cognizance of this case. The plaintiff, who is the zamindar of the, entire village, brought the suit but of which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Munsif of Etawah on the allegations that one Ram Din Brahman was the occupancy tenant of certain lands specified in the plaint, that he died without any issue and without having made any adoption, that defendants 2 and 3 set up defendant 1, son of defendant 2, falsely as the adopted son of Ram Din with the idea that the occupancy holding should go to those defendants and that as a matter of fact there was no such adoption. The plaintiff accordingly asked for a declaration that Ram Din died without having made an adoption and that the alleged adoption was a mere fiction. The defence was several and among these, one was that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court, as defendant 1 was a tenant of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »