Allahabad Court June 1931 Judgments
Bhairo Lohar and ors. Vs. Sh. Abdul Wahab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All134
Mukerji, J.1. The facts of this case are a little complicated and will have to be stated at some length in order to appreciate the points that arise for decision in second appeal. The plaintiffs who were minors, instituted the suit out' of which j this appeal has arisen, on 22nd December 1924, for ejectment of defendants 1 to 4. Their case was that they were occupancy f tenants of the lands in suit and the defendants 1 to 4, who were cosharers in the village, but who were not the entire body of cosharers, ejected them from the lands in suit on 25th June 1924.2. The suit was met by a number of objections. The first Court dismissed the suit and the second Court affirmed the decision. The ground on which the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the first Court was that a certain order or supposed order of the Assistant Collector made in pursuance of an application of the plaintiff's mother, defendant 5, was a bar to the maintenance of the suit. We shall have occasion to state the ...
Tag this Judgment!Hira Vs. Gaya and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All183
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. A suit for a declaration of their rights to fish was filed by the plaintiffs and among the reliefs claimed in the plaint was one for the costs of the suit. On 3rd August 1927 the parties agreed to refer the whole case to the arbitration of five arbitrators. It was not a reference of specific points but of the whole case. There can be no doubt that the dispute in the case included one relating to costs of the litigation and that dispute also was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators delivered an award in favour of the plaintiffs decreeing their claim, but in the award they made no mention of any costs.2. Objections were filed to the award by the defendants, but the plaintiffs did not object to the award on the ground that it was defective inasmuch as it omitted to give them costs. The learned Munsif overruled the objection and directed that a decree should be prepared in terms of the award. He however ordered that the plaintiffs should get 2/3rds of their entire ...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Chand and anr. Vs. British India Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All210
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the British India Corporation Ltd., Cawnpore, against Raja Moti Chand and Lala Gokul Ghand, defendants first party, and Lala Lalta Prasad, Jhabu Lal and Shri Kishen Ghand, defendants second party. The defendants first party will for convenience sake in this judgment be called as Raja Moti Chand and the defendants second party as Lalta Prasad. The plaintiffs prayed that : (1) a decree be passed against the defendant? declaring the proprietary right of the plaintiffs in the plaint properties and declaring that the said properties are not affected by a mortgage executed by Lalta Prasad in favour of Moti Chand on 15th May 1909 and are not saleable in execution of the decree obtained by Raja Moti Chand against Lalta Prasad; (2) it he declared that the sale in favour of Raja. Moti Chand in November 1925 is null and void and ineffectual against the plaintiff; (3) an order of 24th December 1926 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge a...
Tag this Judgment!Md. Fazihzzaman Vs. Anwar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All314
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a house and shops. A lease had been granted by plaintiff 1 Mt. Muhammadi Begam to the defendant for a period of ten years on 23rd July 1917. Before the expiry of that period, namely, on 6th May 1927, she executed another lease in favour of Anwar Husain plaintiff 2, for a further period of ten years. The former lease was to expire on 22nd July 1927 and the second lease was to take effect from 1st August 1927.2. The suit was originally filed jointly by Muhammadi Begam and Anwar Husain and it was for ejectment and mesne profits, Leter on Mt. Muhammadi Begam's name was transferred from the array of the plaintiffs to that of the defendants. The plaint however was not substantially amended. The Courts below have decreed the claim for possession and that decree has been affirmed by a learned Judge of this Court. The claim as regards mesne profits for the period prior to the lease in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Hon'ble Raja Moti Chand C. I. E. and Anr. Vs. the British India Corpor ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-30-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.78
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the British India Corporation Ltd., Cawnpore, against Raja Moti Chand and Lala Gokul Chand, defendants first party, and Lala Lalta Prasad, Jhabu Lal and Shri Kishen Chand, defendants second party. The defendants first party will for convenience's sake in this judgment be called as Raja Moti Chand and the defendants second party as Lalta Prasad. The plaintiffs prayed that 15 C. 94, a decree be passed against the defendants declaring the proprietary right of the plaintiffs in the plaint properties and declaring that the said properties are not affected by a mortgage executed by Lalta Prasad in favour of Moti Chand on the 15th of May 1909 and are not saleable in execution of the decree obtained by Raja Moti Chand against Lalta Prasad : 28 A. 76 at p. 80 : 3 A. L. J. 675 : A. W. N. (1906) 283, it be declared that the sale in favour of Raja Moti Chand in November 1925 is null and void and ineffectual as against the plaintiffs : 119 Ind. Cas. 61...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Farrukhabad and ors. Vs. Kishore Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All250
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for contribution which was treated by the first Court as a suit for the enforcement of a lien of the vendor for the unpaid purchase money. In 1911 a mortgage deed was executed by Raghunath Singh hypothecating a half-share in a grove and a zamindari property to Chhange Lai. Later in the same year Raghunath Singh along with the guardian of Sita Ram Singh sold the grove to Azizuddin and Imamuddin, leaving money in the hands of the transferees for payment of the entire mortgage money due to Chhange Lai. Subsequently Imamuddin transferred his interest in the grove to Azizuddin and then the latter acquired, the whole interest in the grove from Azizuddin in 1916. There was a stipulation in the deed that Imamuddin would pay the whole of the mortgage money. Sita Ram instituted a suit for the cancellation of the deed executed by his guardian which succeeded. Then Sita Ram transferred to Lachhmi Narain his share in the groye....
Tag this Judgment!Manager of the Court of Wards and anr. Vs. Kishore Mohan Alias Munna L ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-29-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.86
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for contribution which was treated by the first court as a suit for the enforcement of a lien of the vendor for the unpaid purchase money.2. In 1911 a mortgage-deed was executed by Raghunath Singh hypothecating a half share in a grove and a zamindari property to Chhange Lal. Later in the same year Raghunath Singh along with the guardian of Sita Ram Singh sold the grove to Aziz-ud-din and Imam-ud-din, leaving money in the hands of the transferees for payment of the entire mortgage money due to Chhange Lal, Subsequently imam-ud-din transferred his interest in the grove to Aziz-ud-din and then the latter acquired the whole interest in the grove from Aziz-ud-din in 1916. There was a stipulation in the deed that lmam-ud-din would pay the whole of the mortgage money.3. Sita Ram instituted a suit for the cancellation of the deed executed by his guardian which succeeded. Then Sita Ram transferred to Lachhmi Narain his share in the grove. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Joglekar Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All504
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. These are applications for bail on behalf of accused persons involved in the Meerut conspiracy trial. In the words of the Magistrate : ' the charge brought against the accused is one under Part 2 of Section 121-A, I. P. C, namely that they conspired to deprive the King of his sovereignty of British India.2. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under this section, when the offence as well as its gravity are established, 13 one of transportation for life. In practice the severity of the sentence would vary with the degree of the seriousness of the acts done by each accused who is convicted.3. The complaint was filed by a police officer against 33 accused persons on 15th March 1929 and all the accused except one were arrested within a week of that date. The inquiry begin in June 1929 and 32 accused persons were committed to the Court of Session in January 1930. One accused person was discharged. The Sessions trial started in that very month and has not yet been ...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar HusaIn Vs. Shah Ahsanul Haq and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All155
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption instituted by respondent 1 on 15th July 1927 to redeem a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the appellant, executed by respondent 2, Ahmad Ali, on 14th June 1923.2. As originally framed, the suit was a suit for redemption based on the simple ground that mortgage money had become payable and there should be a redemption. In the lower appellate Court another ground was taken, namely that there had been a breach of contract by the appellant, and therefore redemption should be allowed, although the term had not expired. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit on both the grounds though the learned Munsif had decreed the suit on the first ground alone.3. The facts are briefly these : Ahmad Ali, the mortgagor, made two simple mortgages, one in favour of one Abdur Rahman for a sura of Rs. 240, and the other in favour of Khan Bahadur Saiyid Mubarak Husain for a sum of Rs. 410 on 8th January 1921. The first mortgage money was ...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunath Baraei and anr. Vs. JainaraIn Baraie and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All661; 137Ind.Cas.145
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal by one who was defendant 1 in the suit. The plaintiff-respondent Jai Narain propounded a pedigree printed at p. 6 of the record as follows: Sheodin, alias Goga Barar | |--------------------------------| Ghurhu Barai Nirahou, deceased | | Sarup deceased= | | | | | (Harnandan, son)| |-------------| | Ajudhya Jaipal= |------ | Mt. Debi Mt. Batasi, mother. Mt, Sartaji, Raghunath is the son daughter of the own brother of | Mt. Batasi | | |---------------------| Jaitu, daughter's son Jai Narain, daughter's son-and said that ha was the next reversioner to the estate of Harnandan, the last male owner of the property in suit. He complained that the mother of Harnandan, Mt Batasi, respondent 2, who was in possession had executed a deed of gift in favour of defendant 1 who was her brother's son, that this deed of gift w,as void after the lifetime of the widow, and the plaintiff accordingly, asked for declaration to that effect. The defence was that defendant 1 had...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »