Allahabad Court March 1932 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.
Musammat Aziz Fatma Vs. Mukund Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.166
1. The 'zamindari' shares of two brothers were put to sale in execution of a simple money decree and purchased by one Haji Muhammad Saleh Khan on the 20th of April 1925. At the time when that sale took place, another person, a mortgagee, had also brought a suit in respect of this property. The mortgagee had obtained a final decree on the 3rd April 1925, and he in his turn put the property to sale. The former purchaser, Haji Muhammad Saleh Khan, received a notice of the impending sale at the instance of the mortgagee on the 2nd September, 1925, and on the 8th September, 1925, Saleh Khan executed a lease of certain plots in favour of one Muhammad Ishaq for 20 years at, what has been held by the learned District Judge to be a favourable rate of rent. On the 28th July 1926, the property was sold again in execution of the mortgagee's decree and was purchased by the present plaintiffs, who filed this suit for a declaration that the lease in favour of Muhammad Ishaq was fictitious and void, f...
Posti Mal Vs. Firm Radha Kishan-lal Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All439
Niamatullah, J.1. The decree-holder respondent instituted a suit against the appellant on foot of a promissory note for recovery of a certain sum of money.2. The suit was contested on the ground which it is not necessary to mention for the purposes of this appeal. Eventually the parties entered into a compromise which provided that an instalment decree for Rs. 3,100 be passed in favour of the respondent. Rs. 500 was made payable every half, year; on nonpayment of first instalment, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum was made payable. In default of payment of two consecutive instalments, the decree holder was declared entitled to obtain execution of his decree in respect of the entire decretal amount remaining unpaid. The defendant (the appellant in this Court) further hypothecated certain properties which were detailed in the compromise. A decree was passed on foot of the compromise and embodied all its terms. Default was made in payment of the first and all subsequent instalm...
Mt. Duiji Kunwar Vs. Mt. Baila Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All460
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The plaint set forth that the plaintiff was the daughter of one Earn Shukul who died some 13 years ago and his brother Deo Saran had previously died. The plaintiff claimed that she had entered into possession of certain occupancy plots which had originally belonged to the two brothers. The plaintiff stated that defendant 1 Mt. Baila Kunwar, widow of Deosaran had been entered for the occupancy holding. Further that on 18th September 1918 zamindars of the mahal admitted the rights of the plaintiff and defendant 1 as occupancy tenants. Para. 5 set forth that on 3rd August 1927 defendants second party Nand Kishor and Ram Adhar instigated Mt. Baila Kunwar to give them a perpetual lease which she did in respect of the plots mentioned in the plaint, and that the plaintiff had not consented to that lease. The plaint further set forth that defen...
Sampat and ors. Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All499
Pullan, J.1. This is a judgment- debtors' appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Benares, who allowed the appeal by the decree-holder against the order of the Munsif holding that a house belonging to the judgment-debtors could not be attached and sold in execution of the decree. The plea put up by the judgment-debtors was that this house was held by them as agriculturists and is therefore exempt from attachment and sale under Section 60(c), Civil P.C.2. The Munsif held that this was a house occupied by the judgment-debtors as agriculturists; but the Subordinate Judge held that it was not. The view taken by him is that the judgment-debtors are only shown to have one holding containing a number of plots, which has already been held to be no longer an agricultural holding, but to be a holding let mainly for building purposes. He argues from this that the judgment-debtors have ceased to be agriculturists and they cannot therefore claim that they hold the house as agriculturis...
Ram Prasad and ors. Vs. Sheo Baksh Goshain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All179
Mukerji J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money brought by the respondent against the appellant on foot of a sarkhat executed by defendant 1, who is the father of the other defendants. The sarkhat is dated 6th April 1920 and purports to bear interest at 10 annas per cent per mensem. According to the terms of the sarkhat the money lent had been paid in cash, but it turned out that it was a balance of money lent before. One of the pleas that was urged in the Court below was that as the sarkhat did not bear any stamp it was not good as an acknowledgment, and the suit should be dismissed on that ground. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was an agreement to pay interest, and therefore the document was an agreement, and accordingly he levied the stamp duty and penalty, and treating the document as an agreement decreed the suit. The Court below made a decree against the sons also but only to the extent of the family property in the hands of the father and did not make the ...
Baijnath Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All409
Boys, J.1. This is a case of some importance in reference to the application of Section 366, I.P.C., and that is unfortunately a section which comes before the Courts possibly more often than any other particular section in the Code, except those of riot and hurt. The question turns upon what is the meaning of 'seduced to illicit intercourse' in Section 366 of the Code.2. A young man of 25 has been found, subsequent to a course of intrigue with a girl of 14, to have taken her away out of the possession and control of her father, and he so took her away, or rather went away with her, because his intrigue was beginning to suffer, interruption. We state the facts in ordinary language because it is the legal language which we have to interpret. The Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 363, I.P.C. that is to say, of simple kidnapping. The accused appealed, and the learned Judge, while he has expressed his views on some of the merits of the case, did not finally decide the appeal b...
Mt. Ram Pati Kunwar Vs. Phool Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All377
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for arrears of rent for 1329-1334-F and for the appointment of a receiver in terms of the relief claimed in the plaint. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the Munsif, Fatehpur. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. Another plea was that the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata. The Munsif did not decide the question of jurisdiction raised by the defendant, but held that the plaintiff's suit was barred by res judicata. Accordingly, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed 4o the Court of the Subordinate Judge who held that the suit was cognizable exclusively by a Revenue Court. Accordingly, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The claim for 1329 to Kharif 1330 was time barred when the suit was instituted in the civil Court. It was subsequently abandoned by the plaintiff. When the plaint w...
Basharat Beg Vs. Hira Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All401
Pullan, J.1. The appellant, Basharat Beg, was one of several defendants in a suit brought by thirteen plaintiffs for damages for injuries caused to the persons of these plaintiffs on 31st August 1925. On that day a Hindu procession passed by the door of a Mahomedan mosque in the town of Rath. It is now not in dispute that bricks were thrown at the procession from the mosque and that numerous Hindus, who are represented by the plaintiffs in this case, received injuries which required medical treatment. First of all a criminal complaint was filed which resulted in a compromise; but subsequently a civil action also was commenced by the plaintiffs against 33 Mahomedans. The plaintiffs asked for a sum of Rs. 5,100 by way of damages; but they entered into a compromise, on 29th February 1928, with all the defendants except six. In this compromise they agreed to accept a decree of Rs. 1,300, representing the total amount of damages due to all the plaintiffs. Clearly the assessment represents a...
Mt. Kundan Bibi and ors. Vs. Magan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All710
Bennet, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 3 to 8, Mt. Kundan Bibi and; others, against a decree for sale on two simple mortgages. The sole plaintiff was one Magan Lal who was a mortgagee under two deeds as follows : (1) 21st January 1916 for Rs. 1,100 executed by Bihari Lal, and (2) 25th January 1917 for Rs. 600 also executed by Bihari Lal. the claim was for Rs. 15,000, a certain amount of the compound interest having been given up. The following pedigree is relevant: _______________________________ | | Shambhu Nath Babu Lal died on 5th March 1900 =Mt. Sundardei | ___________________________ | | Gaya Prasad Bihari Lal Defendant 12. The main question which is before us-on appeal is whether on the date of execution of these two mortgages Bihari Lal was or was not a minor. There was also a further question as to whether the consideration in the two deeds was actually received by Bihari Lal, but the main point is that of minority or majority. On the one hand it was alleged that the date...
Juthi Upadhya and ors. Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All481
King, J.1. This was a suit for arrears of rent payable by an agricultural tenant. The main defence was that the area of the holding bad been decreased by diluvion and that the defendant was entitled to remission of rent under a local custom. The trial Court found that the alleged custom, which is described as the custom of balpanchat and bijmar, did not prevail in the village. So the defendant was not entitled to any remission by virtue of the alleged custom. The question then arose whether the Court should not grant a remission under Section 72, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The Court found that over 33 bighas out of the holding of about 38 bighas had been removed by diluvion and that a further area of the holding was unculturable. The Court took the view however that no remission could be granted under Section 72, since that section does not apply to alluvial tracts and accordingly decreed the plaintiff's claim in full. The lower appellate Court concurred in finding that the alleged custom...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »