Allahabad Court April 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.
Gunni and ors. Vs. Dal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All717
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by 7 out of 9 defendants against whom an auction was lodged by Dal Chand, mortgagee for enforcement of a mortgage by sale of the property. The property in dispute belonged to a joint family consisting of Munga Gujar and his sons. We have abstracted the following genealogical table, which may be referred to for the elucidation of the facts of the case:Amira |Munga = Mt. Mehro (dead)|--------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | | |Chokha Shayma Bhimma Gunni Bhundi (dead) Guttfdeft. 1 deft. 2 deft. 3 deft. 4 =Mt. Risalo (dead)| | deft. 9Tukki deft. 5 | || Bathua deft. 8|--------------------------------------| |Likkhi deft. 6 Khub Chand deft. 7.2. After the death of Munga, his surviving sons continued as members of a joint family. On 1st June 1915, the mortgage in suit was executed by Chokga. Shyama, Bhimma and Bhundi, adults, and by Mt. Mehro, their mother, for self, and, as mutual guardian of her minor sons, Gutti and Gunni. The ...
Shadi Lal Vs. Jagdamba Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All655
Sen, J.1. One Shadi Lal was the purchaser of a usufructuary mortgage which had been executed by Lala Inder Sahai, father of Munshi Jagdamba Sahai, in favour of a third party. Shadi Lal instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 14,000 in enforcement of this mortgage. The suit was directed against Jagdamba Sahai, Uma Sahai alias Lallan, Champa Kuer and many others. It was prayed that the amount be realized by sale of zamindari shares in Jamb Nagla and Maheshpur and of a house in mohalla Barahmanpuri in the city of Bareilly. The defendants appealed from this decree and their appeal was numbered and registered as No. 391 of 1923. During the pendency of the appeal, Shadi Lal applied for and obtained a final decree. This decree was put into execution and the three aforesaid properties were sold and purchased by Shadi Lal himself. The house in Barahmanpuri was purchased by him, on 27th January 1925, and Shadi Lal was put into formal possession of the house, on 1st May 1925.2. On 10th November 192...
Nurul Hasan Vs. Mt. Aisha Bi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All760
King, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application for partition of certain zamindari property. The pedigree of the parties is given at p. 15 of the paper book. Mt. Aisba Bi and others were applicants for partition. Nurul Hasan, one of the non-applicants, made an objection on 7th September 1927, alleging that his sisters Mt. Aisha Bi and Fatima Bi did not got any share in the zamindari property left by the father as there was a custom in the objector's family that the daughters of a deceased person get no share in the zamindari property left by their father. He also alleged in para. 6 of his objection that the decree of the civil Court, relied upon by the applicants for partition, is only a fictitious and ex parte proceeding as against the objector and not binding upon him.2. A reply was made to this objection on behalf of Mt. Aisha Bi. She maintained that her rights had already been declared by a decree of the civil Court, that her name and that of the other applicants had been ente...
Mt. Basanti Devi Vs. Chotte Lal-durga Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All607
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an objector's application in revision from an order refusing to inquire into the objection made under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C, to an attachment. It appears that while the decree was in execution, certain property was attached by the decree holder and an objection was preferred by the present applicant under which she claimed the property as her own. This objection was dismissed for default on 12th September 1925. It was for her to sue within one year of that dismissal if she wanted to nullify the order disallowing her objection. It happened however that owing to the nonpayment of the necessary expenses for issuing of a fresh proclamation the decree-holder's application for execution was itself struck off for default. The order of the Court did not clearly specify that the attachment ceased, but it followed as a matter of law under Rule 57. This happened on 16th March 1926, long before the period of one year had expired from the dismissal of the object...
Ram Chandra Brij Lal Vs. Manohar Das Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All751
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Small Cause Court refusing to file an award delivered out of Court. The parties are members of a body called Cawnpore Kapra Committee and they signed the admission forms which stated that they would abide by the rules of the committee and that if there was any dispute relating to business or dealings between the members of the committee and that dispute was put before the committee, the committee would have full right to settle it, and any decision arrived at by the committee would be binding upon them. It further stated that if the signatories do not abide by the rules and the decisions of the committee, it would have the right to strike off their names from the rolls of members.2. There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant on account of a claim put forward by the plaintiff to the effect that there was a rule of the committee that if any customer began purchasing articles from another commiss...
Dipan Rai Vs. Kapil Deo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All120
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain plot No. 40, in the abadi of a village, by the demolition of a wall said to have been newly constructed thereon by the defendants.2. The parties to the suit are co-sharers in the village and the village was partitioned in the year 1893. In the partition the plot No. 40 fell to the plaintiffs' share. The plot is adjacent to the outer wall of the defendants' house and the defendants claimed that the land belonged to them, and, in any case, it has always been in their exclusive possession, firstly, because water from the eaves of their house had always been discharged over it, and secondly, because the women of defendants' household always used the plot as a privy.3. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff' suit finding that the parties were parties to the partition proceedings and are bound by the allotment arrived at by the Revenue Court. It is clear from the khasra and from the coloured partition map that...
Ram Das and anr. Vs. Habib Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All178; 136Ind.Cas.384
1. This is an application in revision from an order, dated 15th May 1930. transferring a case from the Court of the Additional Munsif of Benares to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli The suit was for recovery of haq. chaharum and was not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. It was originally filed in the Court of the City Munsif of Benares who had territorial jurisdiction to try it. The District Judge suo motu transferred the case to the Court of the Additional Munsif who apparently had concurrent jurisdiction. Subsequently the plaintiffs made an application to the District Judge totransfer the case from that Court to the Munsif of Haveli, because there was no Presiding Officer for the Additional Munsifi at the time. The learned Judge without issuing notice to the defendant ordered the transfer to the Court of the Munsif of Haveli. Although it was open to the learned Judge to proceed suo motu and transfer the case from one Court to another Court competent to try it, yet when he was mo...
Sabir HusaIn Khan Vs. Jan Mohammad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All651
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision from a decree of the Court of Small Cau38S. The plaintiff had purchased a decree which was ultimately sat aside on appeal to the High Court. The first Court had decreed the suit for the setting aside of that decree on the ground of fraud but that decree was reversed by the District Judge. It was on a further appeal to the High Court that the decree of the first Court was restored. The present suit for refund of the price on the ground of failure of consideration was filed more than six years after the first Court's decree set-ting aside the decree which had been purchased but was within three years of the High Court's judgment. The learned Judge of the Court below has relied on the case of Juscurn Boyid v. Pirthi Chand A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 151 and has held that time began to run from the date of the first Court's decree and the claim was barred by time.2. It seems to me that when the, first Court's decree was set aside by the District Jud...
Sat Rohan Prasad Tewari Vs. Bharath Prasad Man Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All652
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for contribution. It has been referred by a learned Judge of this Court to a Bench of two Judges because of the question of law involved in it. The plaintiff had three brothers who formed a joint Hindu family. They were indebted to a firm Bilas Rai, which kept the account in the name of two brothers, Bharat and Lachhman. In 1913, a suit was brought against Bharat and Lachhman for the amount due from the joint family and on 4th June 1913 a decree for Rs. 450 with future interest at six per cent per annum was passed against defendants. This decree was against the family which was represented by its karta. Admittedly by that time the family was joint.2. A separation took place several years afterwards. In 1924 Bharat, plaintiff, was arrested in execution of this decree and he executed a simple mortgage on 4th July 1924 in lieu of the amount due-under the simple money decree. Later on another suit was filed on the basi...
DIn Dayal and anr. Vs. Tarak Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All241
Bennet, J.1. This first appeal was brought by two defendants, Din Dayal and Debi Dayal, who were brothers forming a joint Hindu family, and Debi Dayal died; so the case was continued by Din Dayal alone as sole representative of this joint family. The appeal is against a decree of an Assistant Collector, First Class of Mirzapur District which has been passed against the appellants for excess profits as a cosharers in favour of plaintiffs cosharers. The decretal amount held to be due from the defendants-appellants for the Fasli years 1330 to 1332 was Rs. 3,077-10-2, that is roughly about Rs. 1,000 per annnm. It is in evidence that this village has practically no cash rents prevailing and rents are calculated at one-quarter of the gross produce of the land. The plaintiff's are not in possession of any cultivated area and only collected small amounts of rent amounting to about Rs. 200 per annum. The share of the plaintiffs in 1330 F were 9 annas 8 pies and in 1331 and 1332 8 annas 4 pies. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »