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.
Ram Sukh Pandey Vs. Pirthi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All47
Sen, J. 1. The sole point argued in this appeal is that the declaratory suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents offends against the provisions of Section 233-K, Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901 local). Durga Singh had three sons Abhairaj Singh, Rajbali Singh and Gobind Singh. These were members of a joint Hindu family. Abhairaj Singh died leaving a widow Mt. Sahodra Kunwar who is defendant 1 in the suit. He had a son Ram Surat Singh. Ram Surat Singh died first, Ram Bali died next and Gobind Singh died last. Certain property was recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Mt. Sahodra Kunwar who had no legal title to the said property by right of inheritance under the Hindu law her right being confined to mere maintenance and. no more. Gobind Singh applied for partition in the revenue Court and prayed that the share belonging to him which stood recorded in the name of Rajbali Singh and Mt. Sahodra Kunwar should be partitioned and formed into a separate patti. The revenue Court all...
Ram Narain-kishun Dayal Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All65
Bennet, J.1. These are two connected appeals brought by the plaintiff firm of Ram Narain-Kishun Dayal of Cawnpore against decrees of the learned First Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore dismissing their two suits. The circumstances which gave rise to this litigation are as follows: There was a firm in Cawnpore by the name of Sitaram Nathmal and the plaintiff firm had dealings with it by supplying cloth, and the plaintiff firm brought a suit No. 280 of 1919 against the firm of Sitaram Nathmal. At that time there were two partners in that firm, Nathmal and Balmakund, and on 23rd June 1919 a written statement was filed on behalf of the firm by Nathmal, stating that he was a partner in that firm.2. Subsequently, at a date not shown, the parties in that suit agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. After the agreement Nathmal died in January 1920, and it is stated in the judgment that prior to that date no proceedings had been taken in arbitration. Subsequent to that date proceedings in arbitr...
Ali HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mohammad Nazir Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All826
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises out of a suit for sale in enforcement of a mortgage, dated 18th March 1922, executed by Ali Husain, Waris Husain and Muhammad Husain for Rs. 1,500 in favour of Syed Nasir Ali Khan Bahadur Zulqadar.2. Ali Husain Khan, who was a treasurer and in the employ of the plaintiff, appears to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2,209-12-5 belonging to the plaintiff. The latter dispensed with his services and instituted a criminal complaint against him on the charge of breach of trust. During the pendency of the said complaint the bond in suit was executed for a sum of Rupees 1,500 without interest, the plaintiff having forgone his claim as regards Rs. 709-12-5.3. The suit was contested on the ground that the bond was executed in consideration of an agreement to compound the criminal case and offended against the provisions of Section 23, Contract Act.4. The Court of first instance gave effect to this plea and dismissed the suit. The lower ap...
Qazi Shamim Ahmad and ors. Vs. Sheikh Hesamul Haq and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All193
Sen, J.1. For the elucidation of the facts of the case it is necessary to refer to the following genealogical table:Sheikh Abdul Haq|----------------------------------------------------| |Mt. Rahmat Bibi, Mt. Khudaija Bibi,1st wife 2nd wife; def. 4| |Mt. Jinnat Bibi, |def. 3 ||----------------------------------------------------|| | |(def. 1) | |Hesamul Haq = | Mt. Ummat-Mt. Akhtar Saida Bibi= un-Nisa Bibiun-Nisa Bibi, Shamim Ahmad alias Bunnanwife (def. 2). husband, plff 1. Bibi (def. 5).|---------------------------------------------------| |Nairn Ahmad Mt. Bachchi Bibi(plff. 2). alias Aziz-un-Nissa Bibi plff 3.2. One Sheikh Abdul Haq was possessed of an eight anna zamindari share in Taluqa Bhadeon asli together with the dakhli villages of Salarpur and Chak Daud, an eight anna share in Mauza Basahi and 12 bighas held in Bigha dam tenure in Mauza, Makhdumpur. He died in 1901 leaving Mt. Jinnat Bibi, who was the daughter of a predeceased wife, Mt. Khudaija Bibi, his widow ( his second w...
Dwarka Prasad and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All631
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of this case, as found by the Court below, have not been controverted before us, and therefore we take them to be correct. It appears that so far back as on 25th October 1883 the Raja of Basti made a simple mortgage of the property in suit for a sum of Rs. 1,999 in favour of four persons Binda, Bisheshar, Ram Tahal and Ganga. The pedigree given below shows how these mortgagees were related to one another. Ram Dayal Kalwar _____________________________|_______________________ | | | | | |Sahai Kuber Prasad Sheo Lal Jaggu Pal | | | | | Bafati Jagannath Ganga ___|_____ | | | | Bisheshar Binda | ________________| _________________|_____________ | | | Ram Tahal Ram Lal Jagmohan | | plaintiff. Mahadeo, Bhagwandas, defendant. plaintiff.2. In course of time several of the members of the family died out, and there was a partition, with the result that at the date of the suit, that was instituted in 1910, for recovery of the money due on the mortgage, the family was no lon...
Mohammad Sadiq Vs. Altaf HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All647
Boys, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for profits in the revenue Court under Section 227, Act 3 of 1926, the suit being against a cosharer and in respect of the years 1331, 1332 and 1333. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' proprietary title and set up a title in himself by adverse possession. I may incidentally note that para. 3 of the written statement describes the plaintiffs as 'very cunning and litigious'. Mere abuse of this description should not be allowed to find a place in any pleadings. The Assistant Collector framed two issues 'What profits are due to the plaintiffs?', and after hearing the case gave the plaintiffs a decree. The defendant appealed to the lower appellate Court and Jin ground 1 of his appeal said:The plaintiffs-respondents are not the owners of that property for the profit of which the suit had been filed. The lower Court has erred in not framing an issue in respect of ownership in spite of the objections taken by the appellant.2. Even here the appella...
Mathura Das and ors. Vs. Secy. of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All848
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by three defendants in a suit instituted by the Secretary of State for India in Council for recovery of Rs. 3,016-4-5 under the following circumstances:One Mutsaddi Lal was a cashier attached to the Thomason Engineering College at Roorkee. He went on leave on 3rd August 1917. Hira Lal, defendant 1, who was a store-keeper in the said college, was appointed to officiate for him from 7th August 1917. Hira Lal was required to find sureties for a sum of Rs. 2,000 to indemnify the Secretary of State for any loss arising either from defalcation or neglect during the period of his incumbency. On 7th August 1917, the defendants executed a security bond in favour of the plaintiff.2. Mutsaddi Lal went on leave on 3rd August. The parties are agreed that the term of Hira Lal's incumbency during his officiating appointment lasted from 7th August 1917 to 12th October 1917, when Mutsaddi Lal returned and Hira Lal reverted to his substantive appointment as store-keeper. On 1...
Sital Prasad Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All701a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order dated 19th December 1929, passed by the Munsif of Meerut refusing permission to Sital Prasad to file a written statement. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs against the firm of Upper India Trading Company through its proprietor Mahabir Prasad and another defendant. Mahabir Prasad filed a written statement on behalf of the firm pleading inter alia that there was another partner of the firm. At a late stage in the case Sital Prasad appeared claiming to be one of the partners of the firm and applying for permission to file a written statement. His application was resisted by the plaintiffs and has been dismissed.2. Under Order 21, Rule 50 where a decree has been passed against a firm, execution may be granted against the property of the partnership or against any person who has appeared in his own name under Rule 6 or Rule 7,0. 30 or who has admitted on the pleadings or has been adjudged to be a partner as well as against...
Sheo Das and ors. Vs. Sheo Dayal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All712
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over plots included is Lists A and B of the plaint. The main question in dispute was whether the plaintiff, who was the lambardar, was in exclusive possession of these plots and the defendants were wrongfully interfering with his possession by granting leases of some of those plots. The first Court decided in favour of the defendants holding that the plots in dispute have not been in sole possession of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the lower appellate Court has held otherwise and decreedt he claim. The finding as to the exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the plots in question is prima facie a finding of fact and binding in second appeal.2. The learned advocate for the defendants, however, contends that the learned Judge has based his finding on Ex. 4 and a chart wh...
Mt. Jamwati and anr. Vs. Mt. Maharani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All227
1. This is a first appeal by Mt. Jamwati, a widow, and her lessee Pandit Ram Chandra, against a decree of the Court of first instance awarding maintenance and arrears of maintenance to the plaintiff-respondent Mt. Maharani, Mt. Maharani is a widow aged 60 and her husband Jagannath died in 1912. He left a minor son Sriram who was the husband of Mt. Jamwati, appellant, who was also minor at that time.. The entry in the revenue records on the death of Jagannath was half for plaintiff Mt. Maharani and half for her minor son Sriram. Mt. Maharani continued in possession of the estate and to make collections. Her minor son Sriram died about 1922 and Mt. Maharani still continued in possession. Her daughter-in-law, Mt. Jamwati, brought a suit No. 56 of 1924, for possession of the whole of the property on the ground that she was the widow of the last male holder. This suit was decreed on 12th December 1921, and in February 1925, on some date not specified, Mt. Jarawati obtained possession of the...