Allahabad Court April 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.
Jadunath Singh Vs. Hanuman Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All668
Bennet, J.1. These are two appeals by the plaintiff and one appeal by-certain defendants against an order in first appeal by the learned District Judge of Allahabad in a suit for profits by the plaintiff. There were originally two suits, one in regard to Mahal Bhagwant Singh and one in regard to Mahal Sheozor Singh. The plaintiff is a cosharer in these mahals and he is not in possession of any area of sir and khudkasht and he has not been receiving any rents or profits for the years in suit. In Mahal Bhagwant Singh there are 45 defendants and it is found that these defendants are in possession of different areas of sir and khudkasht some of which they cultivate and some of which they sublet to subtenants. There is also in this mahal about 10 bighas of land which is let to non-occupancy tenants. The Court of first instance decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting him a decree in Mahal Bhagwant Singh for Rs. 572-13-8 as his share of profits assigning different amounts as due from diffe...
Janki Prasad and ors. Vs. Karamat HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All674; 137Ind.Cas.578
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by certain Hindu plaintiffs against a decree of the learned District Judge of Bareilly. The circumstances are that in the town of Senthal in the Bareilly District there is a mosque which has been established for a long time, and at a very short distance from the mosque, apparently within a dozen yards according to the map on the record, there has been more recently a Hindu temple established. The plaintiffs are representative Hindus, who brought a suit for a declaration as follows:(a) It may be declared that the plaintiffs and the other Hindus are competent to perform the pujapath (worship) of Sri Thakurji Maharaj and the other deities installed in the thakurdwara situate in qasba Senthal, pargana and tahsil Nawabganj, bounded as below, by ringing ghantaa, gharyal, by blowing sankh, and by ringing other religious musical instruments without restrictions of time and to perform kirtan, gayan, ras lila on Monday and Ekadashi (11th day) day according to...
Emperor Vs. Baldeo Koeri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All712
1. Baldeo Koeri, Bisheshar, Sahadeo, Hemraj, Lurkhur, Ramdeo, Munnu, Deoraj, Sukhraj, Khurkhur, Jaisri, Jhullar, Girja Dasaundhi, and Ramadhar were committed to the Court of Session at Jaunpur to take their trial under Sections 307/149 and 148, I.P.C. Of the above persons Baldeo was also charged of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.2. Twelve of these persons are residents of Pindri; they are Koeris by caste and are related. Two of the accused, namely, Girja and Ramadhar are Dasaundhis by caste. They have gob no interest in Mauza Pindri. They are residents of Mauza Nageshra.3. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Baldeo under Section 302, I. P.C. He acquitted all the 14 accused persons of the offence under Sections 307/149, I.P.C. He also acquitted Baldeo, Jaisri, Jhullar, Girja and Ramadhar of the offence under Section 148, I.P.C., but convicted Bisheshar, Sahedeo, Hemraj alias Hannu, Lurkhur, Ramdeo, Munnu, Deoraj, Sukhraj and Khurkhur under Section 148, I. P. C' and sentenced them ...
Basdeo Rai and ors. Vs. Jaimangal Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All53; 136Ind.Cas.69
Pullan, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal in a suit brought for redemption of a mortgage executed by Dhondha Rai and others on 19th September 1878 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in this suit. The plaintiffs claimed to represent the mortgagors and their suit has been dismissed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, first, on the ground that the plaintiffs had no right or title to redeem the mortgage as the legal representatives of the mortgagors; and, secondly, because the mortgagees had acquired a proprietary title by adverse possession for more than 12 years.2. The plaintiffs' ancestors were the mortgagees of Dhondha and others in virtue of two deeds executed on 23rd August 1869 and 16th December 1876 respectively. A notice of foreclosure was served by the mortgagees fin the mortgagors in accordance with Regn. 17 of 1806 on 23ra August 1877 and the order of foreclosure was passed on 2nd October 1877. Under Regn. 17 of 1806 a year's grace was allowed to the mor...
In Re: Mahant Raj Balamgir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All392
Sulaiman, Ag, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57, Stamp Act. One Mahant Raj Balamgir agreed to purchase standing timber in a certain jungle in the District of Basti for Rs. 36,000 and executed a document which he called a kabuliyat (counterpart of a lease) under which he promised to pay the price in a lump sum on a certain date and in case of default he agreed that the owner of the timber would have the right to realize the amount from him. He further promised to have the wood of the said jungle cut and removed within a year. He affixed a stamp of one anna on this document.2. The question arose whether the document was a lease of immovable property or whether it was an agreement. Members of the Board of Revenue were inclined to the view that standing timber should be considered as moveable property and the document in question was a mere agreement chargeable under Art). 5 (c), Schedule 1, Stamp Act, and was not a. lease within the meaning of Section 2 (16) of the said Act. The...
Ram Saran Das Vs. Yudhishtar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All389
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Where a Court obtained a security bond which hypothecated immovable property to 'secure a proper disposal of money due to minors, deposited with it, whether an assignment of the security bond in favour of the minors on their attaining majority in order to enable them to realize the money from the surety must be made by way of a regularly stamped and registered deed of sale or may be made by an order passed by the Court.2. It appears that Rs. 30,000 odd had been deposited to the credit of certain minor plaintiffs in the execution proceedings. Their mother, Mt. Saraswati, who was their guardian ad litem in the suit, applied to the Court for permission to take out the amount. Security was demanded from her under Order 32, Rule 16, Civil P. C, and on her behalf one Hakim Jiwan Lal executed a registered security bond dated 13th November 1922, under which he made himself liable for the whole amount and agreed that the Court woul...
Ram Harakh Vs. Jagar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All5
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the appellate judgment of Mr. Rup Kiahan Aga, Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Allahabad, who reversed the decision of Mr. Shri Gopal Singh in a suit for a declaration that Mt. Gomti, defendant 3 was the wadded wife of the plaintiff and also for a decree granting restitution of conjugal rights. The suit was instituted on 15th September 1927 in the Court of the Munsif, East Allahabad.2. The parties to the action are Sarju Pari Brahmins and thus belong to the twice-born caste.3. The defendants to the suit are Jagarnath, uncle of Mt. Gomti, Mt. Kailasfey, the mother and Mt. Gomti herself who was under the guardianship of Jagarnath at the data of the suit.4. Jagarnath and Baijnath were brothers. It is not clear from the pleadings or the evidence on the record whether these two were members of a joint Hindu family. Baijnath died about the year 1921 leaving a widow, Mt, Kailashy, and two minor daughters Mt. Gomti and Mt. P...
Bangi Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All437
ORDERPullan, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Ghazipur who has upheld the order of a Magistrate of the First Class binding over the applicant Bangi Lal under Section 110, Criminal P.C.2. A report was made against this man by the police of Ballia that he was a dangerous and desperate character and his being at large without security was hazardous to the community. No less than 43 witnesses were examined for the prosecution in order to show that this man is a dangerous and desperate character and he produced 47 witnesses in his defence to show that he was not. The Magistrate who tried the case went through all these witnesses in detail and believed those who were called for the prosecution in preference to those who were called for the defence. The Sessions Judge says that he carefully considered the evidence and heard arguments on both sides, but in his judgment he does not make mention of any single witness for the defence although one of the...
Raja Ram Vs. Gopi Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All721
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision from an order superseding an arbitration. A suit was brought on the basis of a mortgage deed executed in favour of the deceased father of the plaintiff and certain pro-forma defendants who were minors. They were represented by their mother as their guardian and l item. Ultimately the plaintiff applied to the Court to exempt these minor defendants from the suit and in concurrence with the defendants submitted the dispute to arbitration. There were controversial questions of fact involved in the case. The arbitrator held that the plaintiff's father was a mere benamidar and that the real owner of the mortgage deed had 'been paid the amount due on the mortgage. He accordingly dismissed the suit.2. An application was filed on behalf of the minor defendants praying that inasmuch as they were necessary parties to the suit they should not have been exempted from the suit and that the award without their consent-was invalid. The lower Court has acce...
Secy. of State Vs. Firm FazaluddIn Badruddin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All53
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision by the Secretary of State under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. On 16th August 1929 an oil tank was despatched by, A.O. Oil Co. Ltd. from Rawalpindi to Punjab Oil and Machinery Stores, at Jhansi. Rawalpindi is on the N.W. Ry., while Jhansi is on the G.I.P. Ry. When the oil tank reached the Agra Cantonment Station, it was found to be leaking. Plaintiff, who is the endorsee of the railway consignment receipt, applied to the railway authorities at Agra Cantonment Station for the delivery of the oil tank to him, as the oil tank was leaking. On 23rd August 1929, the oil tank was delivered to the plaintiff as requested. The present suit was instituted in the Court of the Judge of Small Causes at Agra for recovery of Rs. 216 together with interest being the difference of of the freight between Rawalpindi and Jhansi the place where the oil tank was stipulated to be delivered and Agra where it was actually delivered. The suit was dire...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »