Allahabad Court June 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.
Sewa Ram Vs. Hoti Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All108
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendant l's appeal from the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, reversing the decree passed by the Munsif of Kasganj in a suit brought by the plaintiff respondent for recovery of Rs. 1,000 on foot of a promissory-note, dated 14th April 1924.2. The promissory-note in suit was executed by Sewa Ram, defendant 1 (the appellant) in favour of Panna Lal, defendant 2, on 14th April 1924 for a sum of Rs. 700 advanced thereunder at the rate of Rs. 1-4 per cent per mensem. Seth Hoti Lal, the plaintiff respondent sued on the promissory-note on the allegation that defendant 1 is his brother-in-law (wife's brother) to whom he advanced the loan in question. He took the promissory-note in the name of defendant 2 and' retained it in his own possession. In other words, the plaintiff claims to be the real creditor under the promissory-note in suit, defendant 2 being his benamidar.3. The suit was contested by defendant 1 who denied having borrowed any mone...
NaraIn Prasad and ors. Vs. NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-05-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.599
1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad affirming the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for enforcement of a lien.2. Narain Singh defendant No. 1 owned a zemindari share in Mauza Mandal Shankarpur, Pargana Bhojpur, in the District of Farrukhabad. On the 1st of August, 1904, he executed a simple mortgage deed in respect of the bulk of the aforesaid share in favour of one Sadbo Ram for Rs. 500 at a certain rate of interest.3. On the 19th of January, 1912, he exectued a simple mortgage-deed in favour of one Pearaylal for Rs. 1,000 and left the entire sum with the mortgagee with the direction that the latter should pay the amount to Sadho Ram and redeem hie mortgage On the same day, he also executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for Rs. 5,000 for a period of 20 years. The property mortgaged by these two documents was the entire interest of Narain Singh in ...
Ajodhia and ors. Vs. Bishambhar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All784
Mukerji, J.1. This is a short appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court.2. The plaintiffs who have recently purchased the entire village brought a suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of damages and an injunction on the ground that on a piece of banjar land there stood a large number of trees, namely mahua, mango, nim etc, and the defendants without any right have cut down a nim tree and have misappropriated the produce of the mahua trees. The claim was for recovery of Rs. 10 as the price of the nim tree and Rs. 50 as the price of mahua flowers.3. The defence was that the trees constituted a grove of the defendants which was planted by their ancestors about 100 years ago, and that the defendants had been in enjoyment of the grove for 100 years. They denied that they had cut the nim tree.4. The Court of first instance decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court Judge modified the decree. He held that the defendants did cut a nim tree which...
Bansi Dhar Vs. Mt. Bitola and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All19
Boys, J.1. The application asks for the revision of an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Etawah, dated 31st January 1930, allowing the suit to be withdrawn with leave to file a fresh suit. Now before such an order can be passed under Order 23, Rule 1, the Court must be satisfied in terms of Sub-rule (2) that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiffs to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of the suit or part of the claim. I have had the facts, as I believe, fully stated before me by Dr. Vaish. I have not had the advantage of hearing anybody on behalf of the opposite party or parties. The order of the lower appellate Court under Order 23, Rule 1 (2), should have been in such terms as to make it possible for this Court to be satisfied that there was, prima facie at any rate, proper ground for the Court's order. The judgment before me in revision says:I have considered the application. The argum...
Ram Charan Vs. Bhairon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All101
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his suit for possession of a house. The plaintiff Ram Charan alias Ram Das claimed this house partly on the ground that he was a son of the last owner Lalai and partly on the basis of a deed of gift from Lalai to the plaintiff on 8th November 1908. The defendants are in possession of the house by virtue of various sale deeds from Mt. Saraswati, sister of Lalai the last male owner. The lower appellate Court found that that plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the son of Lalai, but it found that plaintiff was entitled to the house through the deed of gift from Lalai.2. In second appeal it has been held that that deed of gift is invalid as it has not been proved to have been duly attested by two witnesses as required by Section 123, T. P. Act. In support of this finding, the learned Counsel for the defendants has referred to Param Hans v. Randhir Singh [1916] 38 A...
Kesho Ram Vs. Chunni Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All139
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendant Kesho Ram against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court upholding the decree of the lower appellate Court awarding possession of certain property to the plaintiff on certain conditions. The plaintiff had a simple money decree for Rs. 1,100 against Behari Singh dated 17th September 1925, and he applied on the same date for attachment of the property in execution. On 3rd October 1925 his judgment-debtor Behari Singh executed a usufructuary mortgage of this property to defendant 1 Kesho Ram, the appellant before us. This mortgage purported to be for Rs. 1,000. On 19th December 1925 Kesho Ram made an objection to the execution of the decree of the plaintiff, claiming that the property had been mortgaged to him. On 16th January 1926, the objection was allowed in a proceeding from which the plaintiff was absent, and it was held by the execution Court that the property should be sold subject to the mortgage in favour o...
Ram Charan Alias Ram Das Vs. Bhairon and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-04-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.241
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his suit for possession of a house. The plaintiff Ram Charan alias Ram Das claimed this house partly on the ground that he was a son of last owner Lalai and partly on the basis of a deed of gift from Lalai to the plaintiff on 8th November, 1908. The defendants are in possession of the house by virtue of various sale deeds from Musammat Saraswati, sister of Lalai the last male owner. The lower Appellate Court found that plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the son of Lalai, but it found that plaintiff was entitled to the house through the deed of gift from Lalai.2. In second appeal it has been held that that deed of gift is invalid as it has not been proved to have been duly attested by two witnesses as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. In support of this finding, the learned Counsel for the defendants referred to Param Hans v. Randhir Sin...
Damodar Pershad Vs. Hardeo Pershad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All351
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870.2. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 9,562-9-3 as principal and interest on account of profits due at the date of suit, together with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum. The suit was decreed for Rs. 5,304-15-4, which included interest at 12% up to the date of suit. No pen-dente lite interest was decreed, but future interest was decreed at the rate of 5% per annum.3. The plaintiff appealed, claiming a further sum of Rs. 2,541-10-3. He also claimed pendente lite interest and made this the subject-matter of one of his grounds of appeal.4. He paid a court-fee on Rs. 2,541-10-3. The question is whether he should not pay a further court-fee on the sum claimed as pendents, lite interest, which by calculation comes, to Rs. 663.5. Under Article 1, Schedule 1, the memorandum of appeal must be stamped ad valorem on 'the amount of value of the subject-matter in dispute.' When the appellant has expressly claimed a definite...
Damodar Prasad Vs. Hardeo Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-02-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.253
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act.2. The plaintiff claimed Rs, 9,562-8-3 as principal and interest on acoount of profits due at the date of suit, together with, pendente lite and future interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The suit was decreed for Rs. 5,304-15-4 which included interest at 12 per cent, up to the date of suit. No pendente lite interest was decreed, but future interest was decreed at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum.3. The plaintiff appealed, claiming a further Sum of Rs. 2,541-10-3. He also claimed pendente lite interest and made this the subject-matter of one of his grounds of appeal.4. He paid a Court-fee on Rs. 2,541-10 3. The question is whether he should not pay a further Court-fee on the sum claimed as pendente lite interest, which by calculation comes to Rs. 663.5. Under Article 1, Schedule I the memorandum of appeal must be stamped ad valorem on 'the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute,' When the appellant has expre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›