Allahabad Court March 1931 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.
Bishen Sarup Vs. M. Abdul Samad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All649; 136Ind.Cas.273
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a Defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession on the strength of a lease. Defendant 2 is the owner of the property which consists of a quarry to be worked. He had granted a lease in favour of defendant 1 which was to expire at the end of May 1923. Another lease was executed by Pahlad Narain, professing to be the general attorney of the owner, on 10th April 1926, in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 10 years to come into effect from June 1928 on the expiry of the lease in favour of defendant 1.2. The plaintiff alleged that he had not obtained possession and accordingly sued to recover possession. Ho impleaded both the owner and the former lessee as defendants. On behalf of the defendants it was denied that any valid lease was executed by Pahlad Narain. On behalf of the owner it was urged that the alleged agent had no authority to grant any such lease. There was also a plea of want of notice under Section 10G. A few other pleas a...
Boochi Vs. Bohre Nathi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All51
Pullan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought under Section 68(b), T.P. Act. The parties entered into a mortgage of agricultural land. In the terms of the mortgage it is clearly stated that the mortgagee shall obtain possession and that the interest of the mortgage debt shall be satisfied by the usufruct. On the same date the parties entered into a further agreement by which the mortgagor should retain possession on payment of a rent of Rs. 216 per annum. The mortgagor then went to the Revenue Court claiming his right, as an expropriator, to have the rant reduced by 25 per cent and he obtained an order fixing the rent at Rs. 170-9-0. The mortgagee brings this suit on the allegation that he has been deprived of part of his security in consequence of the wrongful act or default of the mortgagor. It may be that if the rent is fixed at a sum lower than that contemplated by the parties and that under the terms of the agreement no higher rate can be obtained, there has been in some s...
Faqira Singh and ors. Vs. Pardamand Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All92
King, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly as follows:2. The plaintiff is a zamindar and the defendants ware his occupancy tenants, On 29th September 1928 the plaintiff obtained a decree for Us. 664 against the defendants for arrears of rent. Under Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, the decree-holder applied to the Assistant Collector for the ejectment of the defendants in execution of his decree. Proceedings were taken under Section 80 and on 13th June 1927 the Assistant Collector passed an ax parte order for the ejectment of the defendants. On the next day, namely 14th June 1927, the defendants appeared and applied for review of the order of ejectment. On 25th Tuna 1927 the plaintiff obtained possession of the holdings in pursuance of the order passed under Section 80. On 2nd July the Assistant Collector rejected the application for review.3. The defendants then applied for revision to the Board of Be venue, and on 25th October 1927, the Board accepted the applicati...
(Babu) Guru Charan Prashad and ors. Vs. aj Newspaper
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All420
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for taking proceedings against Babu Rao Vishnu Pararkar, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the 'Aj' newspaper. The facts are not now in dispute and may be accepted as substantially set forth in the written statement filed by the editor. On 28th January 1931 one Beni Ram Shukul brought a certified copy of a document purporting to be a will of one Mt. Raj Rani and showed it to the assistant manager Sri Baldeo Das and requested him to publish it as an advertisement. Rs. 15 were paid for the costs of printing and the copy was published in the paper. We may assume in favour of the editor that the certified copy was actually shown to the assistant manager and was taken back after a copy of it had been retained in his office. The editor however does not deny that the assistant manager understood that this was a document filed in a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares. As a matter of fact the copy itself purported to have been...
Raghunandan Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All433
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the City Magistrate of Bareilly made under Section 133, Criminal P. C, forbidding the applicant to work the engine of his factory from 9 p. m. to 5 a.m. The learned Sessions Judge after considering 'the case fully has declined to interfere with the orders passed. The applicant owns a factory in the city, the engine of which it appears, makes a considerable noise, but the factory has been working for a number of years. A complaint was made in March 1930 and the evidence produced before the Magistrate showed that although the factory had been working for some years in a congested part of the town, new machinery had been added from time to time and especially an oil engine had been replaced by a 'steam engine within the last two years. The complaint alleged that the noise made by this engine amounted to a public nuisance within the meaning of Ch. 10, Criminal P. C, and the question before the Court was whether in the cir...
Ram Lal Vs. Mahomed Faiyaz Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All447
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,365 as damages from the defendant. The claim which gave rise to this appeal was somewhat peculiar. On 30th September 1919, certain pardanashin ladies sold a zamindari property to Faiyaz Ali defendant for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 25,000. On the date of the sale, the property was burdened with a mortgage, which had merged in a decree, dated 28th July 1909. Under this decree, the mortgagors were liable to pay to the 'mortgagees, a sum of Rs. 9,516. This amount was left with the vendee for payment to the mortgagee decree-holders namely, Ram Lal and Puran Mal. Faiyaz Ali vendee did not pay this amount to the decree-holders. Ram Lal, one of the decree-holders, instituted a suit for pre-emption against Faiyaz Ali and obtained a decree on 9th March 1921. The decree was conditional upon his paying to Faiyaz Ali Rs. 2,471-4:-0 in addition to Rs. 9,516 which has already been adverted to. These su...
Bhup Singh and ors. Vs. Sheo Shanker and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All743; 136Ind.Cas.281
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. In this case although the original mortgage was simple and the mortgagor was to pay interest to the mortgagee, he executed a subsequent document in favour of the mortgagee putting him in possession of two plots in lieu of interest and authorizing him to cultivate those plots or to let them out to tenants. No question was raised before the learned Judge of this Court that this document was for any reason invalid. In the ordinary course of the management the mortgagee let out these plots to defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiffs redeemed the mortgage out of Court, but instead of suing the tenants in the Revenue Court for their ejectment, in case they had such right, they brought a suit for possession in the civil Court impleading the mortgagees also. The first Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenants could be ejected by the Revenue Court only. The lower appellate Court took a contrary view. A learned Judge of this Court has overruled the view of the lower appell...
Bankey Lal Vs. Peare Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All244a; 137Ind.Cas.187
Sen, J.1. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this appeal, lie within a very narrow ambit. In 1910 Harsahai Mai, father of the plaintiff, and of the two defendants executed a will under which he directed that the property in dispute, which is a house situate in Bareilly should go to his three sons after his death, but out of the usufruct of this property Rs. 100 a year was to be spent for the maintenance and upkeep of a dharamshala. On 22nd July 1919, Harsahai Mai appears by his conduct to have revoked this will. He executed a registered deed of endowment under which he dedicated the property in controversy to Sri Ram Chanderji Maharaj, the God of the two worlds. He directed that out of the income of the property Rs. 100 had to be spent annually for the support of sadhus and travellers seeking shelter in the dharamshala.2. Harsahai Mai died. The present suit was instituted on 8th April 1927 for a declaration that the document dated 22nd July 1919 was fit to be set aside, be...
Halka Vs. Nannhon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All259; 140Ind.Cas.42
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for posession. According to the plaint a mortgage had been made by the plaintiff's father in 1899 for a sum of Rs. 199 and the defendants' predecessor was put in possession of the mortgaged property which consisted of occupancy holdings. The plaintiff offered to pay the amount due on the mortgage and sought recovery of possession. There were several defendants to the suit. Defendant 1 did not admit the title of the plaintiff or the existence of any mortgage at all. Other defendants admitted the plaintiff's title, but pleaded that the mortgage deed alleged by the plaintiff not having been registered the plaintiff' could not claim any right under it and was not entitled to recover the property. Both the Courts below overruled the pleas raised by the defendants and decreed the claim on payment of the amount admitted by the plaintiff.2. The lower appellate Court held that the mortgage deed being unregistered was admiss...
Babu Guru Charan Prashad and anr. Vs. Babu Rao Vishnu Pararkar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.282
1. This is an application for taking proceedings against Babu Rao Vishnu Pararkar, Editor, Printer and Publisher of the 'Aj' newspaper. The facts are not now in dispute and may be accepted as substantially set forth in the written-statement filed by the editor. On the 28th of January 1931 one Beni Ram Shukul brought a certified copy of a document purporting to be a Will of one Musammat Raj Rani and showed it to the assistant manager Sri Baldeo Das and requested him to publish it as an advertisement. Rupees 15 were paid for the costs of printing and the copy was published in the paper. We may assume in favour of the editor that the certified copy was actually shown to the assistant manager and was taken back after a copy of it had been retained in his office. The editor however does not deny that the assistant manager understood that this was a document filed in a suit pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, As a matter of fact the copy itself purported to have been ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »