Allahabad Court January 1931 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.
Radha Krishna Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All369
King, J.1. The suit which gives rise to this appeal was instituted for setting aside a compromise and a decree for money passed on the basis of the compromise.2. The plaintiff is a minor. Defendants 2 to 4 are his brothers. After their father's death defendant 2, Gauri Shankar,' executed promissory notes for Rupees 75,000 in favour of Ram Narain, defendant 1. Mt. Janki Kuar (defendant 5) and her three sons Manni Lal (defendant 3), Kanhai Lal (defendant 4) and Radha Krishna (plaintiff) sued Gauri Shankar (defendant 2) for partition of the joint family property. While the suit was pending Ram Narain (defendant 1) brought a suit, No. 53 of 1928, against Gauri Shankar and his three brothers on the basis of the promissory notes. Both the suits were decided according to a compromise filed on 8th August 1928. Ram Narain's suit was decreed in full against Mt. Janki Kuar and her three sons. Gauri Shankar surrendered his share in the family property in return for being absolved from liability in...
Kundan Lal Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.252
Sen, J.1. This is an application by the judgment-debtor and has been made under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.2. On the 18th of January, 1919, Bishambhar Nath obtained a simple money-decree against Kundan Lal the applicant from the Court of Small Causes at Oawnpore, He applied for execution of that decree on the 20th of February, 1922. The present application for execution was made on the 5th of April, 1930. Ex facie, this is belated application and is beyond time. It appears, however, that the judgment-debtor had applied for being declared an insolvent on the 3rd of July, 1922. This was followed by an order adjudicating him a bankrupt, but the said order was annulled on the 7th of December, 1927. Section 78 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920) provides that 'where an order of adjudication has been annulled under this Act, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or any application for the execution' of a decree (other than a s...
Mt. Abhilakhi Vs. Sada Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All244
Mukerji, J.1. The question that has been referred for decision to the Full Bench is a short one, namely:Whether under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Act 5 of 1908), an application for review of a judgment, passed by a Bench hearing an appeal from the decision of a single Judge of the Court under C1.10 of the Letters Patent of the Allahabad High Court, lies.2. The answer to the question depends on the further question whether the Civil Procedure Code applies to a hearing of a Letters Patent appeal. By Section 117, Civil P.C., the provisions of the Code except as provided therein, apply to chartered High Courts. Unless therefore the hearing of a Letters Patent appeal comes within the exceptions mentioned in Section 117 the provision of the Civil Procedure Code would apply to such an appeal. It is conceded that the exceptions enumerated do not apply to such an appeal except Rule 35, Order 41, Civil P.C. The Bench of a High Court hearing an appeal from the decision of a single...
B. Brij Gopal Vs. Mt. Dhapi Bai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All333a; 137Ind.Cas.343
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal against an order appointing Mt. Dhapi Bai the respondent as guardian of the person and property of her minor son Babu Suraj Karan. The appellant, according to the pedigree given to us by his learned Counsel is five degrees distant from the minor's father. The appellant's grandfather and the minor's grandfather were brothers. The application was based by the appellant on the ground that the family of the parties was joint and no appointment of guardian could be made in law in a joint Hindu family.2. The District Judge has not decided whether the family is joint or separate. He has taken his stand on the fact that a litigation is going on between Suraj Karan on the one hand and the appellant Brij Gopal on the other in which the question of separation or jointness of Suraj Karan's late father Jaur Mal is in dispute. Jaur Mal has, it appears, executed a will and Brij Gopal's contention is that as a member of a joint Hindu family, Jaur Malf could not execute ...
Gaya Kurmi and ors. Vs. Ram Sahai Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All405a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for preemption. The only point in controversy is that the pre-emptor was a cosharer on the date of the sale deed, namely the 16th of July 1927.2. It appears that a small share of ton pies belonged to Sheoraj and devolved on his widow Mt. Sarupa after his death. She sold this share for Rs. 199. On her death Ajudhia became the reversioner entitled to succeed 1o estate of Sheoraj. Early in 1926 Ajudhia sold this share along with some other property to Ram Sahai, the present plaintiff. But admittedly Ram Sahai did not obtain actual possession nor was his name recorded. He filed a suit for possession of this share against the transferee by avoidance of the sale deed of 1926.3. While the suit was pending the property in dispute in this appeal was sold by the vendor under the sale deed dated 16th July 1927. Ram Sahai's suit was decreed on 28th October 1929 by the Court in the following terms, namely that the suit for possession...
Ghasi Ram and anr. Vs. Ram Dial and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All657
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants and arises from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Budaun, dated 4th February 1928, modifying the final decree passed by the trial Court, dated 30th July 1927. Hashmat Ali, defendant 1, and Daud Husain, defendant 2 owned certain properties in mauza Jamoh and mouza Karaulia. Hashmat Ali was in possession of property in mouza Jamoh. Ghasi Ram and his minor nephew Ved Prakash defendants 4 and 5 were the purchasers of the equity of redemption in mouza Karaulia. An application was made by the two last mentioned persons in the trial Court before the passing of the preliminary decree that the Court should direct that the property in mouza Karaulia should not be sold in enforcement of the plaintiff's mortgage till the property in mouza Jamoh has been sold. An issue was framed as to whether Ghasi Ram, defendant 4, was entitled to got the property of Hashmat Ali mortgagor sold first. This issue was answered in the negative, a...
Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur of Dumraon Vs. Bhau Nath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All413
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for ejectment of defendant 2 and, in the alternative for ejectment of all the defendants, six in number. The first Court decreed the suit for ejectment of defendant 2; but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it in toto. Hence this second appeal.2. The suit was one under Section 58, Agra Tenancy Act, brought under . very peculiar circumstances. The plaintiff, the Maharaja of Dumraon, leased 107 bighas odd to Madan Mohan Singh Bhau Nath Singh and Ram Khelawan Singh, the first three defendants for a term of seven years, 1316 to 1322 P., at a certain rent. The term reserved by the lease expired in 1322 F., but the lessees held over till 1327 F., when a fresh transaction, of which the nature and validity is in question in this case, was entered into. It appears that the original lessees and three other persons who are defendants 4, 5 and 6 negotiated with the plaintiff-appellant for a lease conferr...
Khushnud HusaIn Vs. Janki Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All663
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an application in Revision from a decree of the Court below under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The revision is filed on the ground that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court but was one exclusively triable by the revenue Court. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that no revision lies inasmuch as there is another remedy open to the plaintiffs. Reliance is placed on the case of Jwala v. Ganga Prasad [1908] 30 All. 331 and Ram Kishen Das v. Jai Kishen Das [1911] 33 All. 647. In the former case the revision had been filed on the ground that the order of the Magistrate under Section 145, Criminal P. C, was a bar to a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, and in the second case the ground was that the Court below had made a mistake of law in holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue. In neither of these cases the ground of revision was that the Court below had absolutely no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It seems to ...
Hon'ble Maharaja Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur of Dumraon Vs. Bahu Nath S ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.869
1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant for ejectment of defendant No. 2 and, in the alternative, for ejectment of all the defendants six in number. The first Court decreed the suit for ejectment of the second defendant; but the lower Appellate Court has dismissed it in toto. Hence this second appeal.2. The suit was one under Section 58 of the Agra Tenancy Act, brought under very peculiar circumstances. The plaintiff appellant, the Maharaja of Dumraon, leased 107 bighas odd to Madan Mohan Singh, Bhau Nath Singh and Rarn Khelawn Singh, the first three defendants, for a term of seven years 1316 to 1322 Fasli, at a certain rent. The term reserved by the lease expired in 1322 Fasli, but the lessees held over till 1327 Fasli, when a fresh transaction of which the nature and validity is in question in this case, was entered into. It appears that, the original lessees and three other persons, who are defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, negotiated with the plaintiff ...
Chaube Madho Rao Vs. Chaube Gur Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All306
Bennet, J.1. These are two execution appeals by one Chaube Madho Rao whose objection to execution proceedings has been dismissed by the lower Court.2. The facts are that a decree-holder, Chaube Gur Narain obtained two decrees for arrears of profit against one. Chaube Binayak Rao, one of 22nd February 1928, which had been taken up in appeal to this Court, and another of 30th May 1926 which was not taken up in appeal. Subsequent to this apparently, the judgment-debtor Binayak became a sanyasi and on 18th August 1928 he made an application to the Collector asking that his son should be entered for all his property, and accordingly mutation was granted in favour of his son, the present appellant Madho Rao. The decree-holder made an application on 20th July 1928 for the execution of the decree, that is, his application was prior to the application of the judgment-debtor for the substitution of the name of his son on 23rd August 1928. The attachment was granted. On 25th July 1929, the appell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »