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.
Nandan Sahu Vs. Hari Shankar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All595
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a defendant's application in revision from an order of the Court below setting aside the dismissal of a suit and restoring it to its original number on payment of some costs. It is urged that the Court below had no jurisdiction to act under Order 9, Civil P.C. On two previous dates both the parties were absent and the Court adjourned the case in order that they might attend in person, with a view to take down their statements. On this last date, namely, the 12th January 1931, the defendant with his pleader was present, but the plaintiff was absent. It further appears that his learned pleader made a statement in Court that he had no instructions to go on with the case. The result was that the plaintiff was absent. The Court passed the following order.The plaintiff is absent to day. He was absent on the last date of issues also and was warned through his advocate to attend Court to day as I wanted to examine him. Taking action under Order 10, Rule 4(2) the suit is ...
Mohammad Mohit Ullah Khan and anr. Vs. Bibi Halima Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All666
King, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of a suit for possession of zamindari shares in certain villages specified in the plaint and for mesne profits. The relationship between the parties would appear from the following pedigree: Hidayat Ullah Klian = Masrur un nissa. | |----------|------------------|-------------| Amanat Mohit Halima Azmat Ullah= Ullah Ullah Begam Kaniz Fatma Def. 1. Plff. Def. 2.2. Hidayat Ullah. Khan, the father of Halima Begam, the plaintiff, had zamindari property in two villages, Akbarpur and Bisaulia. His wife Mt. Masrur-un-nissa (the plaintiff's mother) owned property in two other villages Bilauna and Hamirpur. Hidayat Ullah died in 1885 and Masrur-un-nissa died in 1890 leaving three sons Amanat Ullah, Azmab Ullah and Mohit Ullah (defendant 1) and one daughter, Halima Begam, the plaintiff.:3. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of her father and mother she succeeded to a share of 40 sihams out of 280 sihams. in her parents' property in the four ...
Panchanan Banerji and anr. Vs. Anant Prasad Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All457; 140Ind.Cas.204
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of a number of plots specified in lists A and B annexed to the plaint and for damages, on the allegation that the principal defendant Anant Prasad has no right to them and that he entered into possession without any lawful title. It is common ground that the land in dispute is part of the zamindari of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Ishwar Dayal and formed the occupancy holding of one Ram Kishun, who died three years before the institution of the suit. Ishwar Dayal was originally in pleaded as defendant second party, but subsequently transposed to the array of plaintiffs as plaintiff 3. It was alleged by plaintiffs 1 and 3 that Ram Kishun left no heirs and. that in consequence his occupancy rights lapsed. They instituted a suit for ejectment of the subtenants Baldeo and Bholet Bhar. Anant Prasad, the present contesting defendant, intervened, claiming to be the lawful heir of Ram Kishun....
Arjun Singh Vs. B. Mahesha Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All437
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for possession of a certain plot has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. As the second appeal raised some difficult questions of law it has been referred by a learned single Judge of this Court to a Bench of two Judges. The facts which were set forth in the plaint were as follows. A portion of plot No. 561 was sir land of which the plaintiff himself is the owner and zamindar and the remaining portion of the said plot was in the zamindari of other persons and was held by the plaintiff as tenant. Entries to this effect were made in the settlement of 1883 for Chamru Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiff. Between the years 1883 and 1885 Chamru Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff, got a guava grove planted on the said plot by Ramsaran Khatik, his subtenant, with his consent and permission. Ram Saran and his wife Mb. Sochani made a usufructuary mortgage by a deed of 7th March 1885 for the sum of Rs. 55 to Sheo Ram Lal, fat...
In Re: Suraj Bhan Ugarsen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All642
Bennet, J.1. These are two references by the Commissioner of Income-tax at the instance of a Hindu joint family of whom the manager is one Surajbhan Uggarsen. In one case the assessment is for the years 1930-1931 and in the other case for the years 1929-1930 under Section 34. In each case there was non-compliance with the orders of the Income-tax Officer. In regard to the earlier year the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 22(2) read with Section 34 requiring a return of in- come for the year 1929-1930. The assessee submitted a return of Rs. 1,500 as an estimated income from interest and stated that an approximate amount was given because the assessee had kept no accounts previous to 1st April 1929. The Income-tax Officer held that this was not a valid return and accordingly he made a best judgment assessment under Section 23(4). An appeal was filed by the assessee and the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax considered the reasons which had led the Income-tax Officer to ...
Tursi Ram Vs. Meghraj Basdeo
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All145
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Muttra sitting as a Judge of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued two defendants, Babu Ram and Tursi Ram. Before judgment the plaintiff and Tursi Ram agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration. Babu Ram was not consulted in the matter, and has really done nothing to prosecute his defence, except file a written statement. The claim against Tursi Ram and Babu Ram was a joint and several claim. An arbitration order was made, and the arbitrators have issued their award. The award was made with the consent of Tursi Ram, and he paid Rs. 100 in part satisfaction of the award. When the award was filed in Court Tursi Ram first of all stated that he agreed to the award, but subsequently withdrew his consent and refused to sign his statement. All these facts I get from the judgment of the lower Court. Tursi Ram then filed an objection to the award, and his objection was that as Babu Ram, who was...
(Lala) Chandi Ram and ors. Vs. (Lala) Kunj Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All383
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law of contribution in the following circumstances:One Rani Durga Kunwar was in possession of her husband's estate. She granted a lease of a portion of the estate in favour of the plaintiffs one of whom has since died and has been succeeded by his legal representatives. She granted another lease in favour of the ancestors of the respondents, the defendants in the case. One Kunwar Anand Singh claimed the entire estate in the hands of Durga Kunwar and her transferees on the allegation that he was an adopted son of the Rani's late husband. During the pendency of the suit Rani Durga Kunwar died. The suit succeeded ultimately and the decree that was made as regards costs was that a sum of Rs. 3,400 should be paid to the plaintiff by the present parties and out of the estate, if any, of the late Rani Durga Kunwar. Rani Durga Kunwar left no property out of which any costs could be recovered. The present plaintiffs, thereupon, the ent...
Badri Chadan Vs. Raja Indrajit Pertab Bahadur Saheb
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All508
Bennet,J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor whose house and shed, otherwise called bungalow, have been attached by a decree-holder with a view to auction sale. The claim of the judgment-debtor is that the house and shed are exempt from attachment and sale, because they are those of an agriculturist under Section 60(1)(c), Civil P.C., which exemptshouses and ether buildings with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him.2. The decree-holder's case is that the decree was passed against the assets of Ramjas, father of the appellant Badri, in the hands of Badri, and that the evidence shows, as the lower Court has found, that Ramjas was not an agriculturist, but that he was a licensed stamp-vendor and a thekedar. The question therefore before us is whether under a decree such as the present against the assets of a deceased person in the hands, of his successor, w...
Mt. Munna Kunwari Vs. Lakhnath Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All648
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal must succeed in part. The two defendants, Lakh-nath Sahai and Chandi Sahai executed a promissory note ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 1,499 on 7th May 1927 in favour of Har Narain Sahai, the stepson of the plaintiff-appellant before us Har Narain Sahai transferred by endorsement the promissory note in favour of his step mother and the latter brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. Har Narain, defendant 3, did not contest the claim. Defendants 1 and 2 did. They pleaded that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was a colourable one and that only Rs. 300 out of the sum of Rs. 1499 had passed as the consideration of the promissory note. The first Court decreed the suit in its entirety, but the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has dismissed it in toto. He found that there was no consideration for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff and that only Rs. 300 out of the entire consideration of the promissory note had passed. On these findings t...
Badri Chandan Vs. Raja Indrajit Pertab Bahadur Saheb
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.685
1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor whose house and shed, otherwise called bungalow, have been attached by a decree holder with a view to auction-sale. The claim of the judgment-debtor is that the house and shed are exempt from attachment and sale, because they are those of an agriculturist, under Section 60(1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, which exempts 'Houses and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for their enjoyment) belonging to an agricultarist and occupied by him.' The decree-holder's case is that the decree was passed agaiust the assets of Ramjas, father of the appellant Badri, in the hands of Badri, and that the evidence shows, as the lower Court has found, that Ramjas was not an agriculturist, but that he was a licensed stamp-vendor and a thakeder The question, therefore, before us is, whether under a decree such as the present against the assets of a deceased person in the hands of his succes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »