Allahabad Court November 1931 Judgments
Municipal Board Vs. Mt. Asghari Jan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All264
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the appellate decision of Mr. Ali Ausat who, on 28th February 1929, overset the judgment of B. Hari Shanker Vidyarthi, Munsif of Etah, in a suit in which the plaintiff-respondent had asked for the following relief:It may be declared that the notice dated 6th December 1927 sent and signed by the secretary of the defendant and issued to the plaintiff is illegal, null and void; that the rule relied on and referred to in the notice docs not apply to the plaintiff and that under it the defendant has no legal remedy (sic) or right to take proceedings against the plaintiff in case of broach of order by her.2. The suit was instituted by Asghari Jan alias Lappo, caste prostitute, with her mother Mt. Bismilla for her next friend, and was directed against the Municipal Board of Etah. The plaintiff with her mother lived in a house situate on the Grand Trunk Road in the city of Etah. The house presumably belonged to Mt. Bismilla, the plaintiff's mot...
Tag this Judgment!Ambika Prasad Vs. Devi Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All318; 140Ind.Cas.110
Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an order of this Court granting an application for 'review. In para. 11 of the petition it is averred that so far as the review application was concerned, the case had been finally decided and that paragraph goes on to say that the matter raises important and substantial points of law of general importance and that the case was a fit case for us to certify to His Majesty in Council.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was for a certificate under Section 109(a) or in the alternative under Section 109 (c), Civil P.C. The valuation of the property involved in the case is over Rs. 10,000. The learned Counsel submits that Section 109(a) provides that an appeal shall lie to His Majesty from any decree or final order passed in appeal by a High Court, and that so far as the parties in this case are concerned the order granting a review has set aside a final decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Dihal Lal and anr. Vs. Lakhpat Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All270
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the-lower appellate Court by which the decree of the first Court in favour of the plaintiffs was modified. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction calling on the defendants to fill in a certain ditch alleged to have existed on a plot in the ground of the plaintiffs and for a decree for possession for the plot in dispute. The Court of first instance granted a decree. The lower appellate Court found that the ditch did not exist and granted a decree merely for possession of a certain area A B P. The appeal has been argued solely on the ground that the lower appellate Court did not comply with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, in regard to the taking of additional evidence. In the memorandum of appeal filed before the lower appellate Court by the defendants it was stated that it was necessary to have fresh measurements made and that the appeal might be decided after those fresh measurements had been made. This appe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagelu Singh Vs. Murti Kuer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All326
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1, Bhagelu Singh, against a decree of the lower appellate Court, awarding the plaintiff, Mt. Murti Kun. war, possession of one-third share of certain immovable property. It is found as a fact by the lower appellate Court that one Bisheshar Singh died leaving immovable property, and on his death a dispute arose between his brother on the one side, Mahadeo Singh, and his four daughters on the other side. A somewhat strange compromise was entered into on 5th July 1912 by which Mahadeo Singh admitted the rights of the daughters and daughters' sons to the property, and apparently, therefore admitted that Bisheshar Singh died as a separated Hindu, but the compromise proceeded to give Mahadeo Singh a life-interest in the property by way of maintenance, and after him his widow or male issue was to hold the property, and only in case there was no male issue was the property to revert to daughters. This is certainly a most extraordinary compromis...
Tag this Judgment!Bindeshari Vs. B. Banshi Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All344; 136Ind.Cas.280
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This revision arises out of execution proceedings. The respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 297 against the applicant Bindeshari who is a soap manufacturer by profession. The respondent attached certain articles specified in lists A and B annexed to his application for execution. It was objected by the judgment-debtor that the articles attached were his 'cooking vessels' and 'tools of an artisan' within the meaning of Section 60, Clauses (a) and (b), Civil P.C. and were not liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree. This objection was dismissed by the lower Court except as regards a batua. Besides the batua exempted, list B mentioned two other articles, a that and a gagra. List A gave particulars of a number of articles which formed the paraphernalia of the judgment-debtor's soap factory. It includes a brass seal for making soap cakes, an iron pan, canisters, tubs, etc. It cannot be disputed that all these articles are necessary for manufacturing soa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Sahai Vs. Secy. of State and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All312; 140Ind.Cas.125
Mears, C.J.1. This is an application, for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of this Court, dated 17th June 1931. The applicant prayed for a certificate under Section 109, Civil P.C. An ancillary prayer is contained in para. 17 of his petition which, is somewhat curious:That the applicant solicits the favour of appointing a receiver and the printing and legal charges of both the parties be realized from the estate and justice be done to the case.2. The subject-matter of this suit consisted principally of a property in Taluqa. Imampur, Pergana Ungli, in the District, of Jaunpur.3. After various defeats in the Revenue Court going back nearly 15 years the applicant had instituted a suit in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur for declaration of title to the aforesaid properties. The suit was directed against the Secretary of State for India and against Mt. Tula and Mt.. Sumitra. The plaintiff-applicant had asked for leave to sue in forma pauperis. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Hubraji Vs. Balkaran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All11
1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, rejecting the applicant's application for leave to appeal as a pauper under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P.C. That order was passed after notice had been issued not only to the Government Pleader but to the respondent, and the present application in revision is made on the ground that the application in the court of the Subordinate Judge could not be rejected under the proviso to Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P.C. at that stage, i.e. after the Court had had an opportunity of rejecting the application summarily, and had, instead of rejecting summarily, issued notices to the other parties concerned. The whole procedure relating to pauper appeals is set forth, in the two rules of Order 44. Rule 1 prescribes that 'a person who is unable to pay the requisite fee may present an application accompanied by a memorandum of appeal' and may be allowed to appeal as a paupersubject in all matters...to th...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Naresh Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All325
ORDERPullan, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur, recommending this Court to set aside the order of a Magistrate passed under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The Judge himself has found no defect in the Magistrate's order, except that in his opinion the Magistrate was uncertain as to which party should be placed in possession and therefore should have acted under Section 146, Criminal P.C. and taken the land under attachment and secondly he objects to the Magistrate's order awarding a sum of Rs. 50 as costs to one of the parties.2. The Magistrate was asked for an explanation. On the first point he says:I was in no doubt about the possession of the person in whose favour the order under Section 145, Criminal P.C. was passed.3. In my own opinion it is quite clear from the Magistrate's original order that he at least had made up his mind as to who was in possession and that being so Section 146, Criminal P.C. has no application. That section merely comes int...
Tag this Judgment!Jagmohan Misir Vs. Mendhai Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All164
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order and decree of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Jaunpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suit was based on a promissory note for Rs. 300. The contesting defendants, although they admitted that they had signed the promissory note and receipt, claimed that they had affixed their signature to a blank paper and that there was no consideration in cash. They alleged that they had induced the plaintiff to give evidence for them in a mutation case by affixing their signature to the promissory note and receipt. On these pleadings the Judge framed an issue in the following form;Did the defendants execute the promissory note in suit for consideration?'2. The burden of proof was in fact thrown on the plaintiff and he produced himself and two witnesses, viz., the witness to the promissory note and receipt and a mukhtar, to prove that the note had been duly executed for a cash consideration. Defendant 1 produced him...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Shanker Vs. Mt. Lilawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All252
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench of two Judges, because the learned Judge before whom if came thought that the matter under consideration required careful examination. The plaintiff is the zamindar of the village and the defendant, who is a minor, is the daughter of a tenant who cultivated some of the plaintiff's lands in the village. The tenant having died and, under the tenancy law, the daughter not being an heir to the tenant, the tenancy lapsed to the plaintiff. He thereupon brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover possession over the house occupied by the late tenant, on the allegation that the house also lapsed to the zamindar. The plaintiff accordingly asked for possession over the house. In the plaint the plaintiff suggested that the Court might, if it thought necessary, allow the defendant to remove the-materials of the house leaving the site to be occupied by the plaintiff.2. The defence was that the plaintiff had no right to turn ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »