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.
Hazari Tewari Vs. Mt. Maktula ChaubaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All30
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession by a thekadar against his landlord on the allegation that although a lease was granted in 1923 the lessee was never put in possession and has been continuously deprived of the profits. It was alleged in the plaint that the cause of action accrued on the date of the execution of the lease and also at the end of each year on the dates of the realization of the lease money. Various -defences were raised including a plea that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. All the other points have been found against the contesting defendants, but the suit has been dismissed on the sole ground that it was not cognizable by the civil Court.5. It is not disputed before us that if the new Tenancy Act were applicable the suit would be cognizable by the Revenue Court. Under Section 212 of that Act a thekadar who has been wrongly ejected from his theka area or wrongly prevented from exercising any o...
Ramji Bodh Shukul and anr. Vs. Mt. Mantorna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All82
Smith, J.1. Certain partition proceedings were pending in the Court of the Assistant Collector when one of the par. ties to the proceedings, Tameshar, died. Three persons applied for the substitution of their names as his heirs. The appellants were two of them. The Assistant Collector dismissed the application of the appellants, holding that they were not the heirs of the deceased; ha substituted the name of the deceased's daughter, one of the rival applicants. An application by the appellants asking for leave to file a civil suit was summarily rejected. Appeals were preferred by the appellants to the District Judge, both from the order refusing to substitute their names as the heirs of the deceased and from the order rejecting their application for permission to file a civil suit. The presetat appeal relates to the order dismissing the application for the substitution of the names of the appellants in place of Tameshar. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that no appeal lay to hi...
B. Ram Karan, Singh (Dead) and ors. Vs. Nakchhad Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All429
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This case was referred to a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court, and has now been referred to a larger Bench on account of some conflict of opinion which has prevailed in this Court.2. The present plaintiffs instituted a suit in 1925 for possession of the tenancy-lands against the defendants treating them as trespassers. In that plaint they claimed mesne profits up to the date of the institution of the suit. The defence of the defendants was that they were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The defendants were accordingly referred to the revenue Court which held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. In consequence of this finding the civil suit was decreed against the defendants. Possession of the land was delivered on 1st April 1927.3. The plaintiffs then instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of mesne profits from 24th August 1925, the date of the institution of the ' first suit till 1st April 1927, th...
In Re: the U.P. Oil Mills, Co. Ltd. in Liquidation
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All701
Young, J.1. This is an application under Sections 184 and 160, Companies Act. The Official Liquidator of the U. P. Oil Mills Co., Ltd. seeks to place upon the list of contributors of the company the heirs of one Syed Alay Nabi who, the liquidator alleges was a signatory to the Memorandum of Association of the company and a subscriber thereunder to the extent of 50 shares in the company.2. The Memorandum of Association was signed by Syed Alay Nabi and others on 23rd June 1920 It is admitted that he did so sign the memorandum, and that he subscribed thereunder for 50 shares. On the same day he signed the prospectus and later on signed a consent to become a director of the company. On 17th July 1920, the managing agents of the company Paras Ram & Co., wrote to Syed Alay Nabi a letter of that date asking him to remit at his early convenience the application money which was due. Syed Alay Nabi never even answered this latter, and apparently paid no attention to it whatever. Six weeks later ...
Satya Nidhan Banerji Vs. Md. Hazabbur Ali Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932All47
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an' order of the District Judge refusing to restore a revenue appeal which had been dismissed for default, A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order. In two cases between the same parties Satya Nidhan Banerji v. Muhammad Hazabbur Ali Khan : AIR1931All533 , decided on 23rd December 1930, Mukerji and Bonnet, JJ. came to the conclusion that such an order was an 'an order passed in appeal' within the meaning of Section 249 and that therefore no further appeal lies to the High Court. The learned advocate for the appellant contends that the District Judge in dismissing the application for restoration was not passing an order in the appeal itself, but was disposing' of the matter which arose in his own Court and in respect of which an original application had been filed before him. Assuming that Section 249 is capable of another interpretation, we are clearly of opinion that in the absence of any provision in the...
Bohra Raghubar Dayal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All705
Pullan, J.1. This application arises from the conviction of one Raghubar Dayal for an offence under Section 4/5, Act 6 of 1912. Section 4 of this Act, renders any person who sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance or quality of the article or drug demanded by such purchaser or sells or offers or exposes for sale or manufactures for sale any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports to be, liable to a fine of Rs. 100. Section 5 brings within the scope of Section 4 the case of any person who on a demand for ghee or butter supplies an article which is not exclusively derived from milk. The case against the accused is that a food inspector of the Agra Municipal Board saw some substance at the accused's place of business and offered to purchase it. He purchased a small quantity apparently under the impression that it was ghee, but the accused has consistently stated tha...
Khushi Ram Vs. Mt. Manta and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All758
Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from an order returning the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he was the subtenant of the plot referred to therein and the defendants improperly and by an act of high-handedness, being actuated by dishonest motive and showing readiness to fight, cut away the crops sown by the plaintiff from his field on 6th October 1928. He claimed damages for the loss of the crops. The defendants in their written statement denied that the plaintiff was the subtenant, and pleaded that the holding had been surrendered long before that date and the crops had not been sown by the plaintiff at all. There was no express plea raised in the written statement that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The act of the defendants complained against by the plaintiff amounted, on the allegations of the plaintiff to a criminal offence and the suit was therefore not of a Small Cause Court nature...
Suraj and Sons Vs. J.O. BrIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1931All759
Mukerji, J.1. This revision is bound to succeed as in my opinion the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, has been misled into the decision at which ha arrived by a certain Rangoon decision which was based on an older decision which was subsequently overruled by that very Court.2. The applicants here were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of five months' hire of a spring bedstead which was the subject matter of an agreement dated 16th February 1930.3. The question is what was the import of the agreement whether it was primarily a transaction of hire and ultimately a transaction of sale or whether substantially it was a transaction for sale. Reading the document independently unaided by any authority I have not the slightest doubt that it was primarily a transaction of hire.4. The agreement which is short starts with the following words:Roceived from . . . the undermentioned articles on hire valued at Rs, 150 onl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›