Allahabad Court March 1931 Judgments
Pateshwari Parsad Pal Vs. Jai Karan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All748; 136Ind.Cas.381
Mukerji, J. 1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the appellant Pateshwari Parsad Pal, a minor, in the following circumstances:2. One Mahadeo Parsad Pal had three brothers Bankay, Harihar and Dan Bahadur. Dan Bahadur, who was a stepbrother of Mahadeo Parsad Pal, succeeded to a taluka property, which originally belonged to his father-in-law under a will. Dan Bahadur died sometime in 1908. His widow was Mt. Sukhpal Kunwar and his daughter was Mt. Balraj Kunwar, and Mt. Balraj Kunwar'a son was Adya Bakhsh, Mahadeo Parsad Pal, being the eldest of the brothers, believed that ho had a substantial claim to the property of Dan Bahadur. The taluka was known as that of Dandikachh. The litigation for the taluka property was a costly affair, and Mahadeo Parsad Pal had not got money. He and his brothers Harihar and Bankey raised some money and fought out a case in the mutation department with Adya Bakhsh, who claimed the property by virtage of a will from his maternal grandfather, Dan ...
Tag this Judgment!Parsotam Ram and anr. Vs. Mangal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All45
Bennet, J.1. This a first appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for partition has been decreed, but certain reliefs have been refused by the Court of first instance. The facts are that the plaintiffs brought a Suit No. 17 of 1923 against the present defendant Mangal Ram claiming possession of half of certain property to which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled as revarsioners on the death of a widow, and the plaintiffs obtained a decree on 17th July 1923. The defendant made an appeal to this Court which was dismissed on 11th November 1926. The plaintiffs got actual possession on 21st May, 6th June and 9th June 1927. The first matter which forms a ground of appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in dismissing the claim of the plaintiffs for mesne profits. Before the lower Court and also in this Court it has been argued that the plaintiffs are not entitled to mesne profits on two grounds. One ground is that the plaintiffs' present suit for mesne profits is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, a...
Tag this Judgment!Sheobans Rai Vs. Shah Madho Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All662; 136Ind.Cas.78
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for recovery of Rs. 10,616 on foot of a promissory note, dated 8th March 1925, executed by the defendant-respondent in lieu of Rs. 7,000 advanced in cash by the plaintiff. The interest stipulated in the promissory note was at the rate of 30 per cent per annum.2. The only defence which it is necessary to take notice of for the purpose of the appeal has reference to the high rate of interest. The defendant pleaded that the rate of interest agreed on was excessive and that it was a fit case in which the Court should reduce it to a reasonable rate. The lower Court has decreed the suit, except so far that the interest has been reduced from 30 per cant to 24 per cent.3. The plaintiff has appealed claiming the interest at the contractual rate; while the defendant has preferred cross-objection praying for further reduction in the rate of interest. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides, and are clearly...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mohamed Vs. Zakir Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All665
Bennet, J.1. This second appeal by the defendant has been referred to a Bench of two Judges by a learned single Judge because a difficult question of law is involved. The facts which have been found in the present case are that the defendant made a complaint in the criminal Court against the plaintiff under Sections 449 and 506, I. P. C, and also asked for security to keep the peace to be taken under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The Sub-divisional Magistrate did not issue any summons or other process to the accused, but he called under Section 202, Criminal P.C., for a report from the police, and the Sub-Inspector made an inquiry and sent a report and after receiving that report the Subdivisional Magistrate went to the villags of the parties himself and went to the house of the accused and held an inquiry. He cams to the conclusion that the complaint lodged by the defendant was false, and he dismissed this complaint under Section 203, Criminal P.C. The accused then filed the present plai...
Tag this Judgment!Nabi Mahomed Vs. Bhagwat Prasad Shukul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All33
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment. The only ground on which the plaintiffs came into Court to dispossess the defendants was that they were tenants in the village in possession of cultivatory holdings from which they had been ejected; that the house occupied by them on the abadi plota had been meant for purposes of cultivation in the said village, and having ceased to-be cultivators they were liable to ejectment from the house. Both the Courts below came to a concurrent finding that the house occupied by the defendants was not an appurtenance to their agricultural holding. As a matter of fact the defendants were not merely tenants or cultivators, but were also dyers and printers who were carrying on the business of dyeing and printing along with agriculture. The finding of the lower appeal Courts was thatdefendants' ancestor Turab settled here as printer and then some land was taken for agricultural purposes by this family subsequently...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanpat Pandey and ors. Vs. Raja Pasput Pratap Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All587
Niamatullah, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the Rajah of Bansi, plaintiff 1, and two of his lessees, plaintiffs 2 and 3, for a perpetual injunction, against 62 defendants, including the appellants in this Court, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs` right of ferry across the river Rapti within the boundary of village Ghai Ghat, pargana Bansi, in the Basti District.2. The plaintiffs' case is that plaintiff 1 has the exclusive right of ferry on the river Rapti in the Basti District, that in pargana Bansi within the boundary of village Ajgara he has a ferry at Tharwaria Ghat for passage of bullock carts, horses, cattle, foot-passengers, etc , across the aforesaid river, and that he has another ferry at Barwa Ghat for a similar purpose. The former is leased to plaintiff 2, and the latter is leased to plaintiff 3. The defendants are said to be proprietors of village Gai Ghat, through which the river Rapti passes at a point between Tharwaria...
Tag this Judgment!B. NaraIn Pal Singh Vs. Rudra Bhan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All2
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in revision from an order of the lower appellate Court confirming an order of the first Court setting aside an auction sale. The application under Order 21, Rule 90 was not made by the decree-holder, judgment-debtor or the auction purchaser; but was made by two persons Rudra Bhan Singh and Baij Nath Singh who claimed to be the other decree-holders. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that there had not been a proper proclamation of the sale and that in consequence the property which was worth about Rs. 15,000 was sold for Rs. 4,000 only. Being satisfied that there had been substantial loss incurred on account of the irregularity they have set aside the sale.2. The applicant who is the auction-purchaser applies for a revision of the order passed by the Courts below on the ground that the Courts had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale except on an application made by some one who came within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P....
Tag this Judgment!Shariful Hasan Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All16
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for damages for malicious arrest. The case has had rather a chequered history and it is necessary to recite the facts. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant who was a Sub-Inspector of Police cherished malice against him and arrested him wrongfully in excess of his authority and sent him to Agra handcuffed. The suit was brought within two years of the said arrest but more than 90 days after it. The defendant pleaded that he was acting in pursuance of his statutory duty and the claim was barred by limitation. He also denied that there was any malice on his part.2. Mr. Banerji the Munsif who first heard the case framed issue 2 as follows:Whether the defendant acted bona fide in the performance of his duties or the arrest of the plaintiff was illegal and malicious.3. He found that the arrest was not malicious and the suit was not barred by limitation, but he pointed out certain circumstances which showed that the Su...
Tag this Judgment!Jagarnath Singh and ors. Vs. Damodar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All37
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the reversioners of the last mala owner on whose death his mother Mt. Sarupa was in possession. The suit was instituted in the Revenue Court under Section 79 of the old Agra Tenancy Act against the transferees and their lessees, claiming to derive title from Mt. Sarupa. the suit was resisted on the ground that the sale deed was for legal necessity and was binding on the reversioners. It was also pleaded that the case was barred by limitation and that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They also denied that the plaintiff was reversioner.2. Some of the defendants were the representatives of the last proprietor and the Assistant Collector found that after partition they had become the sole proprietors of these lands. They were therefore also landholders of these plots which were owned by the plaintiff as his fixed rate tenancy. The trial Court held that the suit was not barred by l...
Tag this Judgment!Kalka Pershad and anr. Vs. Jangi Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All664
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal and upholding a decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court found that the suit should have been instituted in the revenue Court, and that the civil Court in which the suit was instituted had not jurisdiction to try it. This question depends on the allegations in the plaint.2. The plaint claimed that the plaintiffs were zamindars of a certain grove in. which the defendants were grove-holders and in para. 4 it was alleged that the trees in the grove had been lost and the plot had become clear of trees and the plot had lost its character of a grove.. Hence the plaintiffs ask for possession and removal of trees. Now under Section 197, Sub-section (a), Act 3 of 1926 (Agra Tenancy Act) it is provided:It shall be presumed that a groveholder holds the land in respect of which he is grove-holder as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »