Allahabad Court May 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.
(Kaviraj) Baroda Kant Sen Vs. Court of Wards in Charge of Baraon Estat ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All752
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a civil revision from an order of the Court of Small Causes dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of fees for attendance as a medical practitioner and for the price of the medicines supplied to the late Raja of Baraon whose estate was taken over by the Court of Wards after his death. The suit has been thrown out on the plea of limitation.2. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that ha was a practitioner belonging to the Ayurvedic system and attended the Raja during his illness, that, he paid visits and supplied medicines to him from 16th December 1924 to 26th March 1926, the total amount coming up to Rs. 640 and that the Raja promised to make prompt payment of the above sum, but did not do so, and died on 7th April 1926. The plaintiff alleged that ha notified his claim to the Manager of the Court of Wards and was waiting for his reply, when ha was informed ultimately on 80th November 1928 that his claim was disallowed. The plaintiff than served the de...
Risal Singh Vs. Faqira Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All453; 136Ind.Cas.568
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from an order of the Munsif of Saharanpur setting aside an arbitration award. A preliminary objection to the hearing of this application is taken and it is urged that no case has been decided and therefore no revision lies under Section 115, Civil P.C. The learned advocate for the respondents relies on the case of Budra Prasad v. Mathura Prasad : AIR1925All566 , decided by a Bench of which I was a member. It was pointed out in that case that there had been a recent decision in the case of Shah Muhammad Fakhruddin v. Bahimullah Shah : AIR1925All458 in which exactly the same point (had been decided against the applicant. Following that decision we held that no revision lay. In the case of Shah Muammad Fakhruddin v. Bahimullah Shah : AIR1925All458 another Bench had held that no application in revision would lie from an order setting aside an award. The Bench considered that they were following the pronouncement of the Pull...
Bishunath Rai Vs. Sarju Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All745
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is an objector's appeal from an order granting probate but not annexing to the probate a copy of a compromise entered into between the parties. At first the proceeding was a contested one but the parties filed a compromise under which they admitted the genuineness of the will and the existence of a sound disposing mind of the testator. The compromise proceeded to divide up the estate into two portions and to put the parties into separate possession of them with power to get mutation of names effected through the Revenue Court. The request was that the Court should decide the case in terms of the compromise and should embody the compromise in its decree.2. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that inasmuch as the genuineness of the will and the power of the testator to execute it were admitted and. inasmuch as he was satisfied on the evidence produced by the applicants that the will had been validly executed he ordered that a probate with a copy of the will...
Ram Lochan Naik and ors. Vs. (Sri Thakurji) Asthapat Thakurdwara
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All163; 136Ind.Cas.157
Pullan, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent and the defendants-appellants are co-sharers in a certain zamindari. There are six plots of land which were up to the year 1924, but for how long it has not been ascertained, entered in the name of a certain Jhakri who was the pujari of the plaintiff-respondent. This Jhakri was dismissed from service and surrendered these holdings to the defendants-appellants. These had their own names entered in the revenue papers as khudkasht holders in the year 1924 (1332 Fasli). When the new Agra Tenancy Act came into force on 7th September 1926 these persons became under the definition of sir in Section 4 of that Act sir-holders being cosharers, who were recorded as being in possession of these plots as khudkasht in the year previous to the passing of the Act. The plaintiff Sri Thakurji Asthapat brought this suit for possession of the plots and for mesne profits claiming that he, and not the defendants, was the sir holder. The suit was partially decreed by the...
B. Basdeo NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Birju Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All226; 137Ind.Cas.149
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. Mahal Mahwapar consists of portions of five villages. The plaintiff's are cosharers in the same mahal Mahwapar but their shares are situated in the first village. The vendor was a cosharer in the same mahal but his share was situated in the second village. The vendee had no share within Mahal Mahwapar. At the same time part of the villages in which the vendor had a share was situated outside the mahal and in two other mahals. Both the plaintiffs and the vendee were cosharers in the second village Bharpur Pachwar but outside mahal Mahwapar.2. It is therefore quite obvious that the plaintiffs cannot claim a preferential right by virtue of their being cosharers in village Bharpur Pachhwar alone because there the plaintiffs and the vendee are both on the same footing as they own shares in that village outside the mahal in dispute.3. The plaintiff's certainly have an advantage over the vendee in this re...
Abdul Rafiq Vs. Bhajan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All199
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against the decree passed by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Pilibhit dismissing the plaintiff-applicant's suit for recovery of Rs. 250 principal and Rs. 30 interest on what purports to be an acknowledgment of liability, but has been wrongly described by the Court below as a promissory note. As considerable importance has come to be attached to its contents in course of the arguments before us,'-it is desirable to quote it in extenso. It runs as follows:A sum of Rs. 250, half of which is Rs. 125, has been found due by me to Shaikh Abdur Rafiq...on settlement of account (fahmid hesab kitab) in respect of dealings between me and him (Abdur Rafiq) up to date. These presents are therefore executed to be of service in case cf need.2. The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that dealings hetween the parties were taken account of on 3rd May 1929 when the sum of Rs. 250 was found due to the plaintiff from the def...
Sarju Prasad and ors. Vs. Mahadeo Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All573
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad. The plaintiff's brought the suit for damages. They alleged that the defendants had dug a trench on their own land, but adjoining the wall of the plaintiffs, so that the foundations of the plaintiffs' house were uncovered, and it being the rainy season, rain had accumulated in the trench and had percolated into and under the foundations of the plaintiffs' house, so that damage had been caused to the walls and floors of their house. The lower appellate Court came to a conclusion in law that the defendants were not liable; but failed to come to a conclusion on the facts of the case. The plaintiffs have appealed. I remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for findings on the questions of fact which arose in the case. Those findings have now been returned. The lower appellate Court has found in fact that damages to the extent of Rs. 200 was caused to the plaintiffs by the accumulation ...
(Mahanth) Sahdevachari Vs. District Judge
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1933All151
Pullan, J.1. The appellant has taken the extraordinary course of making the District Judge of Benares respondent in this appeal. He has not made any other person respondent, although the proceedings in the District Judge's Court show cleaarly that the parties were Maheshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. v. Mahant Janardanachari. The appellant himself was not a party to proceedings, but he may be a person interested in the proceedings as it appears that in the course of the proceedings at an earlier stage he was appointed 'mukhiya dharam Khata' of this trust property in place of Janardanachari. Clearly if there is any appeal against the order of the District Judge the proper respondents are the persons who started the proceedings, namely, Maheshwar Prasad Singh and another. In no case can the District Judge be a party. It is contrary to law and also to the public policy to call upon the District Judge as respondent to support his own judgment. In my opinion this so-called appeal as presented mu...
Jones, A.E. Vs. Ram Charan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All700
Sulaiman Ag. C.J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding under rather peculiar circumstances. A final mortgage decree was obtained by the appellant decree-holder against the mortgagor on 9th April 1927. The decree awarded interest up to date and also gave to the decree-holder future interest.2. The decree-holder filed 'an application for execution of the final decree, calculating interest which had been entered in the decree up to the date of the decree but omitted from his application the interest which had accrued subsequently. As the mortgaged property was ancestral the execution was transferred to the Collector under Schedule 3, Civil P.C. The mortgaged property was sold, and about Rs. 12,000 were realized. Out of this Rs. 8,845 were sent to the civil Court by the Collector in order to pay up the amount for which execution had been sought. Unfortunately the Collector disposed of the balance of the amount without any express instructions from the c...
Abdul Wahid Vs. Tribhawan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All756
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's application in revision from an order of the District Judge affirming the order of the Small Cause Court Judge who declined to entertain an application under Order 21, Rule 89. After the sale had taken place the judgment-debtor deposited within the period allowed by law the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as well as a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money as required by Order 21, R 89, and applied for the sale to be set aside. He did not at that stage pay the poundage fee. The munsarim reported that the poundage fee ought to have been paid at the time the application was filed. On the very day that this office report was made the appellant applied asking for time to deposit the poundage fee.2. The learned Judge remarked:I am sorry it does not lie within my jurisdiction to grant any extension under Order 21, Rule 89. Any deficiency in the deposited amount necessarily involves 1 a rejection of the objection. The applic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »