Allahabad Court January 1932 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.
Ram Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All643
1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for redemption of a mortgage and is directed against a judgment of this Court under Section 10, Letters Patent. One Parmanand Lal possessed an occupancy holding in Mauza Bhaipur Kalan, Pargana Bhulli, in the District of Mirzapur which consisted of 27 plots comprising an area of 15 bighas 10 biswas. On 26th June 1885 he executed a usufructuary mortgage of the entire holding in favour of Udit Singh for Rs. 175. Later on Parmanand Lal executed another usufructuary mortgage of the identical plots in favour of one Bhagwan Lal for Rs. 1,475 on 21st January 1901, and left Rs. 175 with the mortgagee for payment to Udit Singh under the earlier mortgage. It was stipulated in this document that this mortgage was to remain in force for 59 years. On 29th April 1904 Bhagwan Lal sold his mortgagee rights to Mukutdhari Lal, son of Udit Singh, for Rs. 499. Mukutdhari Lal was the father of defendants 1 to 3 and grandfather of defendants 4 and 5. O...
Brij Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All367
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision by a complainant Brijlal of Cawnpore against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore confirming the order of the Joint Magistrate of Cawnpore dismissing the complaint of Brijlal on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the Cawnpore Courts. The complaint of Brijlal was made under Section 409, I.P.C. against are accused Hanuman Bakhsh. The complaint sets forth that Hanuman Bakhsh, who is the owner of a firm of Bhairon Bakhsh Mangi Lal, resides in Faridpur District in Bengal, and that the agent of the Cawnpore complainant one Hoti Lal, appointed the accused as commission agent or arahtia for the sale of oil in the District of Faridpur and that a consignment of oil was sent to the accused and that the accused had only accounted for part of the price. The Magistrate summoned the accused and the accused raised the plea that the Cawnpore criminal Courts had no jurisdiction as the offence-alleged would be an offence tr...
Paras Ram Chaubey and anr. Vs. Sheo Dhan Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All558
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for redemption. Both the Courts below have decreed it but on payment of a much smaller amount than that claimed by the defendants-appellants who are the legal representatives of the original mortgagee Ramyad Ghaube. The plaintiffs are transferees of the original mortgagor Brij Raj Dube. The principal question in controversy between, the parties relates to a deed of further charge for Rs. 100 carrying interest at one-eighth per cent. It is alleged to have been executed by the mortgagor on 22nd September 1874. The possessory mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed much earlier, on 4th August 1868. The defendants-appellants claim a sum of Rs. 1,858-0-9 alleged to be due under the bond of 1574. Both the lower Courts have disallowed this sum and decreed redemption on payment of Rs. 213. It is not now in dispute that under the mortgage of 1868 the defendants-appellants were in possession, of two plots, one of which w...
Chaudhri Gulab Singh Vs. Raghubir Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All369; 140Ind.Cas.499
Mears, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-holder and is directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, dated 9th May 1931, refusing to set aside an auction sale on the petition of the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C.2. Gulab Singh held a decree against Rup Basant Singh and others in enforcement of a mortgage, dated 18th August 1923. In execution of this decree, the zamindari property of the judgment-debtors was advertised for sale and 21st July was fixed for sale. On that date, the officer conducting the sale had no time to, put up this property to sale. He continued the sale on 22nd July 1930 and the property was knocked down to Raghubir Saran for Rs. 2,700. Gulab Singh made an application for setting aside this, sale on the ground that there was material irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale and that the property had been sold for a grossly inadequate value. The lower Court repelled these contentions of Gulab Singh and dismi...
Ram Sahai Vs. Debi Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All614; 139Ind.Cas.170
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order, dated 25th July 1930 passed by the Subordinate Judge of Banda. The applicant who is a member of an agricultural tribe within the meaning of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act was a mortgagee under a deed of simple mortgage dated 24th January 1913 executed by Mt. Raj Rani who is now represented by Debi Deen the opposite party who was also a member of such tribe. The land hypothecated by the aforesaid deed is 'land' within the meaning of that Act. The circumstances which have led to the revision are so inter-related to the provisions of the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act 2 of 1903 that it is necessary to make a reference at the outset to Sections 6, 9 and 16 of the aforesaid Act. Section 6 provides that a member of an agricultural tribe can make a mortgage in one of the prescribed forms and not in others. Generally speaking the object of the section is to minimise the chances of foreclosure, if not altogether to prevent...
Chaube Bhan Dat Vs. Chube Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All472
Mears, C.J.1. Chaube Moti Lal sued Chaube Bhan Dat to recover Rs. 80 on the ground that Chaube Bhan Dat had cut a nim tree belonging to the plaintiff which was growing upon the plaintiff's ground and had done so without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without any right and had taken it away. Those are ambiguous phrases which might be deemed to cover the commission of a criminal offence but might very well be nothing more than an assertion that the defendant had committed a civil wrong. The civil revision came up before Bajpai, J. on 21st April 1931, and the case of Raghubar Dayal v. Mulwa : AIR1927All288 was presented to him. Also his attention was called to the case of Deohi Rai v. Harakh NarainLal : AIR1926All760 . Those were the only two cases before the learned Judge. We shall have, in a moment or two, to refer to a third. Now the case of Raghubar Dayal v. Mulwa : AIR1927All288 is extraordinarily like the matter that is now being debated in this revision. The head-note says that...
Jagdish NaraIn and anr. Vs. Hazari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All467; 140Ind.Cas.535
Mears, C.J.1. This is an appeal by two minor sons against the order of the learned Judge who refused to issue an injunction restraining the decree-holder from selling property mortgaged to him by their father. We do not propose to interfere with the decision of the learned Judge in this matter. In view of the statement made to us by Mr. Panna Lal it appears that the principal, if not the only, allegation upon which this suit could succeed would be to prove the alleged immorality of the father. Para. 3 of the plaint starts by an allegation that the father was 'extravagant.' As extravagance has no bearing on the matter, it is an irrelevant allegation. The paragraph further says that the father was 'dissolute.' That bare statement by itself is insufficient and offends against well known rules. A general charge of immorality cannot be permitted in a pleading. The immorality must be pleaded with particularity. That is, the exact nature of the immorality, be it gambling, drinking, women or a...
Basdeo Prasad Vs. Mt. Sakina Begum and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All73; 140Ind.Cas.106
Pullan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against, a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, who stated that the appeal before him was an appeal from a final decree in a suit for accounts. The plaintiff is said to be a brass merchant in Moradabad town who finding himself unable to collect certain dues appointed one Nisar Husain as agent for making these collections. This Nisar Hosain made cer-tain collections and made certain payments to his principal, but on his death it was found that there were certain sums due from him to the principal, and the latter filed this suit. In both the Courts below the suit was conducted on the lines that the heirs of Nisar Husain were liable for any articles belonging to the plaintiff which hadbeen entrusted to Nisar Husain and for any sums which Nisar Husain realised on plaintiff's account. Both the Courts below went into the question of these accounts and decided that articles of a certain value were with Nisar Husairi and that Ni...
Chaube Bhan Datt Vs. Chaube Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-07-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.506
1. Chaube Moti Lal sued Chaube Bhan Datt to recover Rs. 80 on the ground that Chaube Bhan Ditt had cut a him tree belonging to the plaintiff which was growing upon the plaintiff's ground and had done so without the knowledge of the plaintiff and without any right and had taken it way. Those are ambiguous phrases which might be deemed to cover the commission of a criminal offence but might very well be nothing more than an assertion that the defendant had committed a civil wrong. The civil revision came up before Mr. Justice Bajpai on the 21st of April, 1931, and the case of Raghubar Dayal v. Mulwa : AIR1927All288 was presented to him. Also his attention was called to the case of Deoki Rai v. Harakh Narain Lal 97 Ind. Cas.129 : 49 A. 85 : A.I.R. 1920 All. 760 : 24 A.L.J. 1017 which is to be found reported in the same Volume at 'page 85'. Those were the only two cases before the learned Judge. We shall bare, in a moment or two, to refer to a third. Now the sase of Raghubar Dayal v. Mulwa...
Mt. Bhagwanti Vs. Mt. Dhanwani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All319; 140Ind.Cas.68
Niamatullah, J.1. The taxing officer has reported a deficiency in the court-fee in this appeal of Rs. 333-8-0 corresponding to a similar deficiency in the plainfe in the suit and counsel for the appellant takes exception to this report. While he admits that under Section 5, Court-fees Act, the decision of the taxing officer is final, he takes exception to the manner in which the matter was brought to the notice of the taxing officer. The report as to deficiency was made by the Chief Inspector of Stamps. Under the High Court Rules, Ch. 3, Rule 10, the person who reports to this High Court on the deficiency or otherwise of stamps is the stamp reporter. These words have now been explained by a recent amendment, which adds after the words 'stamp reporter' the words 'or any other officer specially appointed in this behalf.' The appellant's counsel contends that prior to that amendment the words 'Stamp Reporter' stood alone and did not include the Chief Inspector of Stamps, consequently no o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »