Allahabad Court January 1931 Judgments
Chunni Vs. Mt. Bibi Rafiunnisha Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All547
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case which have given rise to this appeal lie within a very narrow orbit. The plaintiff is Zamindar of Mauza Baghthari. The defendant, who is a Lodh by caste, is a reyaya living in the village abadi. Plaintiff alleged that, according to a custom which was recorded in the Wajibularz prepared at the time of Mr. Currie's settlement, certain ryots settled in the village had to pay Re. 1 to the zamindar as bau (the fee of a landlord when a daughter of one of his tenants is married) on the occasion of each marriage or dharicha. The defendant married his daughter in January 1925 and the customary ban was not paid to the zamindar; hence the suit. The defendant denied that the custom obtained in the village and pleaded that the Wajibularz referred to by the plaintiff was a record of contract and not of custom The Court of first instance, upon a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the custom was established. It accordingly gave the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Puttulal Vs. Raj Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All428
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and has been filed by the plaintiff, who had sued for recovery of Rs. 28 principal and interest from the defendant. Parties to the suit are brothers, who owned shares in mahal Banal in equal moieties. The office of Iambardar having fallen vacant, both of them applied for appointment as lambardar. On 15th June 1925, an agreement was entered into between the parties, whereby Puttu Lal, the plaintiff withdrew his candidature for Iambardarship in favour of his brother Raj Narain, and the latter agreed in consideration of this to pay the plaintiff Rs. 8 annually out of the collection dues in respect of the irrigation charges of the village Banal. There was a clause in the instrument that the aforesaid sum was payable by Raj Narain to Puttulal from year to year during the continuance of Raj Narain as Iambardar. On 11th February 1930, Puttu Lal instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes for ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarju Prasad and anr. Vs. Ramsaran Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All540
Sulaimam, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for the enforcement of a simple mortgage dated 21st March 1922 executed jointly by Lakhan Singh and his son Bijai Bahadur in favour of the plaintiff Ram Saran Lal for Rs. 4,700 with interest at 2 per cent per mensem compoundable every six months. The properties mortgaged were the entire villages Deotra and Amaipur-Sanda as well as a house which is no longer in dispute in appeal. The plaintiff urged that the mortgage had been executed for legal necessity and in order to pay off a previous antecedent debt, and was therefore binding on the family. The suit; was contested on two main grounds, first that it was made during the pendency of the previous attachment, and secondly that it was made while the Collector was in charge of the property under Schedule 3, Civil P.C.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the estate of Lakhan Singh was in charge of the Collector on the date of the mortgage and that...
Tag this Judgment!Chhita Vs. Mt. Jaffo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All767
Sen, J.1. A plaint was presented in the Court of the Munsif of Muttra by one Babu Bishambhar Nath, on behalf of Mt. Jaffa and others. The plaint was accompanied by a vakalatnama, which was duly signed by the plaintiffs. Through haste or by oversight, the executants of the vakalatnama omitted to enter the name of Babu Bishambhar Nath in the body of this instrument. The blank space in the vakalatnama in which the name of the pleader should have been written had not been filled in. Babu -Bishambhar Nath however had endorsed the acceptance of the vakalatnama on the back of this document.2. At a late stage of the case this defect was discovered by a pleader for Chitta, defendant. Ho objected that there was no valid plaint in Court, as that document had been presented by an unauthorized person.3. This objection was sustained by the Munsif. He orderedthe case to be struck off the file with the direction that the plaint be returned to the vakil for proper presentation.4. A formal order was dra...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dhani Ram Vs. Ram Rikh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All548
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff claimed the right of a cosharer under the Pre-emption Act by virtue of a deed dated 19th October 1894 which was ostensibly a deed of sale with a condition for retransfer on payment of the amount. The condition was embodied in the document itself. Both the Courts below have held that this was a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. The case is covered by the definition of a mortgage by conditional sale as given in Section 58, Sub-clause (C), and there can be no doubt that this was a mortgage by conditional sale and not an out and out sale: Man Singh v. Guman Singh : AIR1929All619 .2. The next point urged is that even as a mortgagee in possession the plaintiff is a cosharer entitled to pre-empt the property. A cosharer is now defined in Section 4, Sub-clause (1), Pre-emption Act, as meaning any person other than a petty proprietor entitled as proprietor to any share or part in the mahal or villa...
Tag this Judgment!Swarath Dhobi Vs. Mt. Ghurki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All313
Mukerji, J.1. This, second appeal has been referred to a Bench of two Judges because the learned Judge before whom it came thought that there was some conflict between two cases decided by this Court, namely Ram Kishan Das v. Tunda Mal [1911] 38 All. 677 and Kundan Lal v. Shankar Lal [1913] 35 All. 564.2. The facts of the case as found by the Court below are those: One Ghurao was a tenant holding the fixed rate tenancy, one-half of which is in dispute in this suit. On 26th July 1913 he made a gift of one-half of it to the plaintiff-appellant Swarath, who was a son of his wife's brother. The other half he gave to his daughter Mt. Lotania. The daughter's half-share went by inheritance to her son and on the death of the son the property was inherited by the father the husband of Mt. Lotania, Jhinguri. On 13th June 1919, Jhinguri sold this half-share in the tenancy to plaintiff's brother Gobardhan, the late husband of respondent 1 Mt. Ghurki. The other defendants in the suit are transferee...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bitana Vs. Shanker Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All329
Sen, J.1. Shanker Lal, plaintiff-respondent, instituted a suit in his capacity as a cosharer against Mt. Bitana, the lambardar, for his share of profits under Section 164, Act 2 of 1901. The suit not having been contested, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 30th September 1926. No appeal was preferred from this decree. No application was made under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P. C, for setting aside the ex parte decree. An application for review of judgment was made on 4th January 1927. This review was granted on 30th May 1927.2. Under the Civil Procedure Code no appeal lies from an order rejecting an application for review of judgment, but an order granting an application for review is expressly appealable: vide Order 10, Rule 1 (w), Civil P.C. For reasons unexplained, no appeal was preferred by Shanker Lal from this order. In the meantime the trial of the suit proceeded on the merits and a decree was passed on 29th August 1927. In the view of the trial Court the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Sulaiman and anr. Vs. Sh. Mazhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All320a
Sulaiman, J. 1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Court below directing that a decree be prepared in terms of an award. The only point urged in revision is that the reference to arbitration was not signed by a vakil duly appointed on behalf of the applicants Muhammad Sulaiman and Muhammad Usman. The applicants were defendants in the suit and on their behalf their pairokar Muhammad Akbar who held a general power-of-attorney appeared. It was Muhammad Akbar who had signed the vakalatnama by which Mr. Abdul Ali was appointed their pleader. The agreement for reference to arbitration was signed by this pleader. The Court below after examining the general power-of-attorney, has come to the conclusion that Muhammad Akbar had full authority to appoint a pleader to act for the defendants.2. It may be doubtful whether a revision would lie on the ground that the Court below has misinterpreted this document. The only way in which the learned advocate for the applicants urges t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sheo Charan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All353
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order of acquittal of two accused, Sheo Charan Lal and Sri Pershad, his brother. There was some difficulty in service of notice on one accused, but eventually notice was served on Sheo Charan Lal personally on 8th January 1931 and the summons bears an endorsement to that effect by him. Sri Pershad his brother has been represented by learned Counsel in this Court and the facts of the case have been fully laid before me. The complainant Durga Prasad, son of Bholanath, brought a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate in regard to infringement of copyright by the two accused by their publication in the year 1920 of a book Ex. C. The printing and publication of this book is admitted by the accused, but they stated that it was composed by one Mulu Singh from whom the accused had received a manuscript copy. This book, Ex. C, is Lakhan's gauna and it is admittedly a portion of a book, Ex A, published by the complainant in 1910 an...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Lal and ors. Vs. Mt. Sunita and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All461
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' application in revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing his suit for recovery of money. In 1923 the plaintiffs obtained a possessory mortgage of certain occupancy holdings only under which they were given the right to enter into possession and appropriate the income. It was further provided that in case the property went out of their possession they would be entitled to recover the money.2. The plaintiffs brought the suit on the allegation that a fraud was committed inasmuch as it was not disclosed to the plaintiffs' father, the mortgagee that the property mortgaged consisted of occupancy holdings, It was conceded in the Court below that if the alleged fraud was not established then no decree could be passed. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that no fraud has been proved.3. It is quite obvious that the contract for the possessory mortgage of the occupancy holdings, if permitted, would defeat the provisions of the te...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »