Allahabad Court March 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.
Kamta Rai and ors. Vs. Rani Jaduraj Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All398
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit to set aside a sale deed dated 2nd July 1923.2. The suit was for avoidance of a sale deed executed by the certificated guardian of the first two plaintiffs, who were minors, on 2nd July 1913. The sale was of a three anna share in mauza Phulvi for the sum of Rs. 14,400.3. On 1st April 1900 a mortgage deed had been executed in favour of the defendant by the grandfather of the two minors. No question as to the legality or otherwise of the mortgage could have been raised as the mortgage of the year 1900 was executed in lieu of antecedent debts. The mortgagee was entitled on 3rd May 1901 to demand repayment of the money and therefore any suit that the defendant had chosen to file to enforce the mortgage would have been within time up to 3rd May 1913.4. The share of mauza Phulvi which was mortgaged by the deed was 6 annas 10 pies, and further, a tiled house was also mortgaged. Mt. Bhagwanta, step-mother of plaintiff 1 and the mother of pla...
Daulat Ram Asthana Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All435
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur purporting to act as the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur, whereby he transferred a criminal appeal filed by one Mr. Daulat Ram Asthana from the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur sitting at Basti to the file of the Sessions Judge.2. Mr. Daulat Ram Asthana was charged before a Subdivisional Magistrate of the First Class, Mr. Ahmad Hasan, under Sections 12 and 13, Printing Press and Registration of Books Act (Act 25 of 1860). It appears that the press had been under the control of the District Board itself, and the Chairman of that Board had in due course made the proper declaration, as required by the Act. The District Board however thought it would be more convenient that the press should be in the charge of the Education Committee, and the press was put in the charge of the Education Committee who in turn asked Mr. Asthana, an advocate practising at Ba...
Zaitun Aheer Vs. Sat Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All549a
Pullan, J.1. The facts giving rise to this suit are as follows: Sat Ram Singh and Maharaj Singh mortgaged certain property to one Zaittin and another for Rs. 750 out of which Rs. 400 were left with the mortgagees for payment to prior creditors of the mortgagors. The mortgagees did not pay that sum. The mortgagors, being threatened by their creditors with a suit, were forced to pay the money, and they have brought this suit to recover the amount so paid with interest by way of damages from the mortgagees. The date of the mortgage was 11th June 1921, and the payments were made by the mortgagors on 12th June 1922 and 14th June 1923. The suit was brought on 14th June 1927 and is within six years from the date of the mortgage. The claim has been decreed by the lower appellate Court, who held that the period of limitation was one of six years and that the article applicable was Article 116, Sch.1, Lim. Act. The appeal is based on the contention that this is not a suit to which Article 11C is...
(Chaudhari) Baldeo Singh Vs. Chhaju Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All703a
Bajpai, J.1. It appears that on 11th June 1928, which was an adjourned date of hearing, the defendant was not personally present, but a pleader appeared on his behalf who applied for a further postponement of the case. This application was refused, upon which he retired inasmuch as he had no further instructions to proceed with the case. The Court then after having stated the facts of the case said: 'The defendants are absent, claim proved. Suit is there-fore decreed ex parte with costs'. Having regard to the explanation added by this Court to Order 17, Rule 2, it is clear that the defendant cannot be deemed to have failed to appear inasmuch as he was represented by a pleader although the pleader was engaged only for the purposes of making an application. The order of 11th June 1928 must therefore be construed to be an order on the merits and therefore a decree against which an appeal lay. The defendant instead of filing an appeal as against the said decree applied to the Court for the...
Sheo Nath Singh and anr. Vs. Lala Bansidhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All415a; 136Ind.Cas.622
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against a decree of a. lower appellate Court. The facts are that the plaintiff sued as zamindar of an entire mahal against the two defendants for certain acts of trespass alleged to have been committed by the defendants. The Court of first instance granted a relief in regard to para, (c) of the plaint only which was the removal of a brick-kiln from plot 322, area 2 bighas 9 biswas. The plaintiff filed an appeal, and that appeal was argued by the pleaders for the parties on 28th March 1928. The case was then adjourned to 30th March 1928 for judgment. On 30th March 1928 the pleaders for the parties appeared before the lower appellate Court accompanied by the plaintiff, and a statement was taken down by the Court at the dictation of the pleaders for the parties to the effect that the parties had come to terms and the terms were set forth. This statement was signed by the pleaders for each party, and by the plaintiff and by the lower a...
Tulshi Prasad Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All449
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant against a decree of the lower appellate Court, under which the plaintiff-respondent was decreed recovery of certain sum of money on a mortgage bond of 23rd July 1915. This mortgage bond was for Rs. 500 and was executed by one Mt. Mohan; Kunwar, maternal grandmother of the appellant defendant. In second appeal it has been argued that in regard to Rs. 366-7-0 of this Rs. 500 mortgage money there was no legal necessity. This sum has been proved to have been taken for the payment of canal dues and it was proved by the evidence of a clerk from the treasury that this money was paid on 8th September 1915 by Mt. Mohani Kunwar into the Treasury for canal dues. The ground taken in second appeal is that this payment did not stand on the same footing as the payment of Government revenue and that it could have been collected only from-defaulting tenants. The assumption of learned Counsel for the appellant is that this sum was paid by Mt. Mohani Ku...
Mahesh NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Besheshar Lonia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All534
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur oversetting a decision of a Munsif of the same district. Bisheshar Lonia executed a simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants on 15th September 1911. The security consisted of two houses, certain trees and a holding described as No. 12 and having an area of 1 bighas 19 biswas and 4 dhurs. This was originally an occupancy tenure held by the predecessors-in-title of the mortgagor. On 8th September 1887, Bisheshar Lonia appears to have relinquished the holding in favour of the zamindar Shah Mohammad Husain and obtained from the latter a patta in perpetuity at a uniform rate of rent. The patta provided that the grantee was to remain in possession and enjoyment of the holding from generation to generation. The leasehold property was therefore heritable. The document however did not prescribe any special rule of inheritance. The tenure sought to be created under this inst...
Dwarka Das Babu Ram Vs. Vaish Flour Mill
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All594; 136Ind.Cas.283
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a revision from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Agra dismissing an application for the restoration of a previous application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C.2. After the sale had taken place the applicant applied to have it set aside on the ground of material irregularities and fraud as well as substantial loss. On three occasions he took steps to get service effected on the opposite party but each time the summons was returned with the report that he could not be found. On the fourth occasion the Court ordered him to deposit the necessary costs, but he failed to do so on the date fixed and no one appeared on his behalf. The application was accordingly dismissed on 3rd August 1929.3. The applicant then applied to have the dismissal set aside on the ground that he had been ill and could not attend the Court. He subsequently filed an affidavit in support of his application. The application did not expressly mention that it was made under Order 9, Civi...
Murli Dhar Vs. Ram Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All667
Suiaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order refusing to recover the amount of the deficiency on resale from the auction-purchaser. The property was sold at auction and purchased by Ram Gopal respondent. He failed to deposit the whole amount and the property had to be resold on 12th May 1921 at a loss. The Court at the instance of one of the decree-holders Nand Kishore passed an order on 14th September 1928 holding that the auction-purchaser was liable for the loss. As that order had been passed at the instance of Nand Kishore it did not expressly mention the judgment-debtor Murli Dhar's name. Nothing was done to recover the amount from the auction-purchaser for a long time during which the decree-holders ultimately succeeded in realizing the entire decretal amount from the judgment-debtor. On 15th October 1929 the judgment-debtor filed an application in the Court for execution of the order against the former auction-purchaser Ram Gopal.2. The learned Judge tho...
Gulab Chand Chotey Lal Vs. Kishen NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All703
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision from a decree of the Court of Small Causes dismissing the suit. The plaintiff claimed the return of the money advanced on account of a contract for the supply of foreign cloth. The main defence to the suit was that under Clause 6 of the agreement the dispute had to be referred to arbitration and could not be heard by the Court. This plea had found favour with the Court below. Clause 6, is somewhat unhappily worded; but it cannot be said that the Court below has committed an obvious error in interpreting it as meaning that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration The condition that no dispute shall be raised or claim made unless notice of difference, whatsoever, is given to the opposite party within eight days from delivering the shipment samples, if any, and invoice, might well have been intended merely to prevent belated disputes from being raised, with the object of putting a time limit beyond which the claimants should not wait. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »