Allahabad Court April 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.
Mt. Shiyam Dei Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All657
Pullan, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant Mt. Shiyam Dei filed this suit on 31st July 1927, praying for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by her in favour of two persona Bankey Lal and Bishunath on 10th June 1926, had been obtained by fraud and should be cancelled, and she also sought as an ancillary relief for a declaration that the house purporting to be transferred by her in that deed of gift was her own property and could not be attached or sold in 'satisfaction of a decree or in satisfaction of any debt due by Nanhoon Mal insolvent who was the father of the allege 1 donees. The plaintiff impleaded the donees, the official receiver of Nanhoon Mai's estate and two oreditors of Nanhoon Mal, on whose application he had been declared an insolvent and who had applied for the attachment of the house in suit by their application dated 18th February 1927.2. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on his finding that the suit is barred as against the official re...
Sohan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933All178a
Kendall, J.1. Mr. Mukerji for the defence has addressed to me a legal argument on this part of the case, to the effect that the persons who are charged with the principal offence of murder cannot also be charged and convicted of the offence of causing evidence of the murder to disappear and in this connexion he has quoted the cases of Empress of India v. Kishna (1879) 2 All. 713, Queen-Empress v. Lalli (1885) 7 All 749, Queen-Empress v. Dungar (1886) 8 All 252 and Torap Ali v. Queen-Empress (1895) 22 Cal 638. Of these cases the most important is Queen-Empress v. Lalli (1885) 7 All 749, as that is a Bench decision of this Court in which the finding was that:The person who is concerned as a principal cannot be convicted of the secondary offence of concealing evidence of the crime. 2. Whether these decisions would apply in a case like the present, where a number of people are charged with carrying out a massacre in the course of a riot, and not with any individual act, or with throwing li...
Jag NaraIn Pande and anr. Vs. Mata Badal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All590
ORDERKing, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fee Act, 1870, and the question raised is whether an application under Section 13 of the Act, for refund of Court-fee. The application is question was the made to the High Court which passed the remand order in consequence of which the refund is claimed. Under Schedule 2, Article 1(d) a court-fee of Rs. 2 is chargeable upon every application (not otherwise specially provided for) when presented to a High Court, unless some ground for exemption is established. The applicant claims exemption under Section 19, Clause 20. This lays down that no fee is chargeable upon anapplication for the payment of money due by Government to the applicant.2. Prima facie this clause is applicable to the facts of this case. The court-fee was credited to Government. If the court-fee is refundable under Section 13 (which is mandatory and not discretionary in its terms) then I think it must be held that the money claimed is due by Government to the app...
Sarju Prasad Sonar Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All483
Boys, J1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for money on a mortgage. It would appear that Mahadeo Prasad executed a usufructuary mortgage on 10th June 1899 in favour of Sarju Prasad, who lost possession and has brought the present suit. No question is really material in the matter, except the single question of whether the suit is barred as res judicata. There were two previous decisions which were said to bar the present suit; but in this appeal we are concerned with only one of them that of a Revenue Court. Mahadeo Prasad had brought a suit against Sarju Prasad in the Revenue Court to eject him from a plot. Sarju Prasad pleaded that he was a mortgagee, and his plea was rejected and Mahadeo's suit decreed. It was contended in the present suit that this question of whether Sarju Prasad was a mortgagee or not having been decided against him by the Revenue Court, the matter was res judicata. Both Courts have held that the suit was barred.2. We are of opinion that the ans...
Majhli Dullaya Vs. Munna Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All571; 140Ind.Cas.292
Boys, J.1. The respondent obtained a simple money decree against the assets of a deceased Hindu to whom the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act was applicable. By reason of Section 16 of the Act, the decree-holder was unable to put the property to sale. He has been given in lieu thereof a lease which doss not exceed the form of lease which it would have been open to the deceased himself to give under Section 11 of the Act. The appellant here has contended that this in effect amounts to attaching the profits to which the Hindu widow would be entitled. He has relied upon a decision of two Judges of this Court in Rani Kanno Dai v. B.J. Lacy [1897] 19 All. 235. This case has bean considered by the Madras High Court, but we do not consider it necessary to pursue that further, as we are of opinion that it does not support the appellant's case, but on the other hand defeats it. All that was held in that case was that a creditor who had got a decree against the assets of a deceased Hindu, could no...
Laraiti Vs. Ch. Shiam Sunder Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All478
Pullan, J.1. This appeal challenges an order passed by the Subordinate Judge in two particulars. The Subordinate Judge has refused to accept a compromise filed by the parties in a civil suit and he has also ordered a third party, Shiam Sunder, to be made a co-plaintiff in the suit after the original parties had filed the compromise.2. A man named Basant Rai died in the month of August 1922 and his widow Mt. Lareti applied for a succession certificate. Her application was opposed by one Kishun Sarup who pleaded, first, that he and Basant Rai were members of a joint Hindu family; and, secondly, that Basant Rai had executed an unregistered will in his favour on 8th August 1922; Kishun Sarup was unsuccessful in these proceedings and the District Judge called upon him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted in a criminal Court. Criminal proceedings were dropped because Kishun Sarup, who was at the time little more than a youth, threw himself on the mercy of the Court. These proceeding...
L. Joti Prasad and ors. Vs. B. Har Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All473
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that the sale deed, executed by the legal representatives of one Mr. John Lemaistre in favour of the defendant-respondent on 25th July 1925 is null and void as against the plaintiffs, who are the proprietors of the land to which the aforesaid sale deed relates and for recovery of possession with mesne profits and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from cutting down trees standing on the land. The land in dispute consists of Nos. 2781 and 2783/1, measuring 5 bighas 10 biswas and 1 bigha 15 biswas respectively, situate in patti Jasso in the town of Bijnor. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs-appellants are the owners of the plots in dispute which are mixed up with plots 2783/2 and 2782/3, belonging to certain proprietors, who are not parties to this case, as also with Nos. 2782 and 2784, which belonged to Mr. John Lemaistre himself. There is a kothi on a portion of the...
Mohammad Said Vs. Mohammad Hanif and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All370
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1, Mohammad Said, against a decree of the lower appellate Court which upheld a decree of the Court of first instance, granting the plaintiff Mohammad Hanif joint possession over a certain house along with defendants 1, 7 and 9. The lower appellate Court specified that the extent of the plaintiff's share in the house in dispute was 7 annas out of 16 annas, and further it was specified that of this 7 annas 4 anna came to the plaintiff by inheritance as heir of his father Niamat Ali and 34 annas came to-the plaintiff by a deed of gift from defendant 8, Abdul Hakim executed on 10th January 1927. This deed of gift was of the whole house, and in the plaint the plaintiff set up the case that Niamat Ali and Wazir Ali were two-brothers, and there was a partition between them and the house in question fell to the share of Wazir Ali, and after his death his son Abdul Hakim, defendant 8, obtained sole possession of the house and repaired it and reb...
Sunder Lal Vs. Subedar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All416
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises-out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the appellant, professing to act as 'lambardar' of 'mahal' No. 3 in village' Chaurihanpur, District Shahjahanpuiv It is not disputed that this 'mahal stands subdivided by an imperfect partition into a number of 'pattis' one of which is patti Peru Singh. It is also-not in dispute that the plaintiff-appellant has no proprietary interest in Patti Pem Singh. The land for which rent is claimed from the defendant-respondent. Subedar Singh, who is alleged to be the-tenant, is in its entirety situate in Patti. Pem Singh. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant is not empowered to collect rent in Patti Pem Singh. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to sue the defendant-respondent for rent, assuming it is payable by him, in respect of the holding in dispute-which is also in controversy.2. In second appeal by the pla...
Mahabali Prasad Vs. H.N. Palmer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932All607
Young, J.1. This is an application in revision from the judgment of the Small Cause Court Judge of Allahabad. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of money due under what he alleged to be a hire agreement, whereby the defendant agreed to hire certain coir matting. He claimed Rs. 150 as hire. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant on 30th September 1928, in the following terms:Received from Mahabalee and Son the under mentioned articles on hire valued at Rs. 92-8-0 (Ninety two annas eight) only, and I do hereby agree to pay to Mahabalee and Son at their business premises at Allahabad the sum of Rs. 9-4-0 (nine annas four) only as monthly hire of the articles month by month in advance (part of a month charged for entire month) on the following terms:(1) To have the articles in my custody, and not to remove, sell, pawn or mortgage them without the proprietor's previous consent in writing and to keep them in good order (fair wear and tear will only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›