Allahabad Court July 1942 Judgments
Jagannath Prasad Bhargava Vs. Lala Nathimal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All17
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Jagannath Prasad against Nathimal, Parmeshwari Das and Mt. Bibiramji in order to obtain a declaration that he was the owner of the property mentioned in the plaint and that the property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree in suit No. 30 of 1927 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. This decree was one for the sale of the property mentioned in the plaint on the basis of a deed of simple mortgage executed by Parmeshwari Das in favour of Nathimal. It is alleged in the plaint that Nathimal advanced some money to Mt. Bibiramji and that Babu Parmeshwari Das stood surety for her to the extent of Rs. 8000, and hypothecated the property in suit in order to strengthen the security. It is further alleged that he had no right, title or interest in the property. The reply upon these allegations in the written statement of Nathimal is that it is denied that Parmeshwari Das had no power to hypothecate the property...
Tag this Judgment!Kuber Rai Vs. Shyam NaraIn Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All46
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs alleged that the boundary between two villages was not fixed and prayed that the boundary should be fixed by the Court. There can be no doubt now that there are three pillars on the site which appear to mark the boundary between the two villages. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit made a local inspection and found them there. He passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs because he came to the conclusion that the stones were not in the proper place according to the map of the settlement. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court found that stones represented the boundary and came to the conclusion that there was no cause of action for the institution of the suit. The argument in second appeal has been based upon the contention that the stones do not represent the true boundary. There is no explanation of the existence of the stones or at least two of them except that they are supposed to represent the bound...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›