Allahabad Court December 1933 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.
Gokul and anr. Vs. Sheo Nandan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All426
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against an appellate decree and order of the District Judge of Allahabad, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit which was for a declaration of their ownership to certain property in what is called the village of Qoraishpur, which is within the Municipality of Allahabad. The plaintiffs claimed an area of 5 biswas 14 dhurs and their case was that they had received 2/3rds of it as a gift from Kamta Prasad, one of the zamindars of the village, and that they had purchased 1/3rd from the sons of Gharu Babu, another zamindar. The Court which first tried the case held that the gift alleged to have been made by Kamta Prasad had not been proved, but gave the plaintiffs a decree in regard to the 1/3rd said to have been the property of Charu Babu. The main contesting defendant had purchased the whole of the property from Kamta Prasad, and he contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had no title. On appeal to the District Judge it was held that the p...
Widdia Pat Upadhiya and anr. Vs. Mahadeo Shastri and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All396
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision of an order of a Munsif rejecting an application to sue as paupers which was made by two plaintiffs who were brothers. The application was rejected apparently under Order 33. Rule 5(a) as the Court found that the application was not framed and presented in the manner prescribed by Rule 2. Rule 2 lays down that with the application there shall be 'a, schedule of any moveable or immoveable property belonging to the applicant.' The language of this rule is compulsory. The applicants belong to a joint family which embraces their father and grand-father and other members. This joint family owns certain zamindari property and house property. No. mention was made of this zamindari and house property in the schedule. Further no mention was made of a grove or garden and the Court has found that after the present application had been made one of the applicants Vidyapat stated in a deposition that the garden belonged to him. The argument was made by...
Mt. Kishan Devi Vs. Chand Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All423
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendant's application for the revision of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Saharanpur, decreeing the plaintiff's suit in full with costs. The suit'was based on a promissory note executed on the 20th April 1928, by Mt. Raj Kali, the widow of one Boocha. Mt. Raj Kali died and the suit was brought against Mt. Kishan Devi, the mother of Boocha, as the next reversioner to the estate of Boocha, and the main plea made in defence was that the debt incurred by Mt. Raj Kali was a personal debt and that: no decree could be given which would bind the assets of Boocha. The trial Court found that as the debt had been incurred by Mt. Raj Kali for the payment of Government revenue there was legal necessity for it, and consequently Mt. Raj Kali could bind the estate of her deceased husband, and a decree was given accordingly. It was part of the argument on behalf of the applicant that legal necessity was not proved and that the claim was barred by li...
Bharta Vs. Chet Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All427; 150Ind.Cas.105
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant from a decree of the Court of Small Causes. The plaintiff's case was that he as lambardar was entitled to recover water rates from tenants but the defendant wrongfully realized some rates from some of the tenants; that when the plaintiff claimed the amount from the tenants, they pleaded payment to the defendant, in consequence of which his suit was dismissed by the Revenue Court. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed that as lambardar he is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant through the Civil Court. The defendant did not deny the fact that he had realised the sum claimed, but pleaded a set-off on account of a payment made by him on account of default in the payment of Government revenue by the plaintiff. It appears that both the plaintiff and the defendant are lambardars but it is admitted that the plaintiff alone was entitled to recover the water rates claimed in the suit, while he was liable to deposit th...
B. Shiva Shankar Das and ors. Vs. Mufti Syed Yusuf Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All481
Sulaiman, C.J.1. I regret that I have come to a contrary conclusion. The previous application of 13th March 1919, contained a prayer that the execution be transferred to the Collector for the sale of the properties given in the list attached and contained an intimation to the Court that if the properties given in the list were not to prove sufficient to pay the principal, interest and costs, then an inventory of other hypothecated properties would be given for the balance of the amount due. The last statement in my opinion was not a prayer made to the Court to take any steps at that stage. The decree, holder had given no intimation to the Court whether the rest of the property was ancestral or non-ancestral. Accordingly, the Court was not in a position to decide whether the execution with regard to that property would have to be transferred to the Collector or whether it would take place under the supervision of the Civil Court. Furthermore, there being no description or specification ...
Gaekwar Baroda State Railway Vs. Sheik Habib Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All740; 153Ind.Cas.824
Niamatullah, J.1. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by any learned brother and desire to make a few observations on some of the questions of law which ha has so elaborately discussed in his judgment. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Agra had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is pointed out that the contract between the parties was entered into at Baroda, where payment was to be made, and that the defendant's place of business is also at Baroda. The plaintiff's reply to this objection is that the cause of action for the suit arose partly, at any rate, at every one of the places where, according to the terms of the contract between the parties, sleepers could be delivered and that Agra was one of the places where the contract made it permissible for the plaintiff to make delivery. The agreement does not mention in clear terms that the plaintiff could deliver at Agra; but the language employed in the various orders can...
Durga NaraIn Singh Vs. Shanker Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All813; 152Ind.Cas.766
Richhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal, arising out of a suit to recover arrears of land-revenue.2. Under a compromise, dated 4th March 1922, the plaintiff owns a 9 anna share, and the defendants have a 7 anna share in the village in question. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the trial Court to recover a sum of money from the defendants. It was alleged that the land-revenue for the village in question, relating to the years 1327 to 1331 F., had been paid by the plaintiff on account of the share, of the defendants, and the suit was for the recovery of the same. The claim was resisted by the defendants. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim, and the plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal. As. regards the years 1327 and 1329 F. the learned District Judge found that the land revenue for the share of the defendants in respect of these years had been paid by them in Hardoi District. This finding is binding in second appeal, and has not been seriousl...
L. Ram Nath and anr. Vs. Lala Ram Chandra Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1935All154; 158Ind.Cas.193
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against a decree passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note dated 4th January 1928, and a receipt on which he claimed that on that date Rs. 2,000 cash had been lent to the defendants. The defendants on the other hand admitted the execution of the promissory note and the receipt, but they denied that there was a loan of Rs. 2,000 cash and they pleaded in para. 4 of their additional pleas that their wives had undertaken to execute a sale-deed in respect of a shop and house in favour of one Daroga Prasad and that as the wives did not execute the sale-deed, for the satisfaction that they would not deviate from the contract Daroga Prasad obtained the promissory note and receipt in question in favour of plaintiff from the defendants. The evidence was conflicting and the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants had failed to prove their allegations. The l...
Arjun and ors. Vs. Man Singh of Sewai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All338
Thom, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit in which the plaintiff sought for the demolition of a certain construction, injunction and damages. The plaintiff, His Highness the Maharaja of Jaipur, is the proprietor of certain lands known as Katra Jai Singh Sewai within the Municipal boundaries of Allahabad. Through this plot of land there runs a public street. Defendants 2 and 8 are owners or occupiers of shops and houses which abut on the said street. The street is a public street within the meaning of the Municipalities Act, 1916, and under Section 116 thereof the said public street vests in and belongs to the Municipal Board of Allahabad. Projecting out from the buildings which they occupy, and over a part of the said public street, defendants 2 and 3 with the permission of the Municipal Board, defendant 1, erected a portico to afford shelter to their shops and to the members of the public visiting these shops for the purpose of purchasing goods sold therein.2. It is not disput...
Khunni Lal Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All449
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. Khunni Lal, decree-holder, obtained a decree for money on 19th July 1928, against Firanga Lal, Ram Gopal and Ram Bharose Lai, judgment-debtors, and a sum of Rs. 20,376-8-0 is due on it. On 24tti February 1930, the judgment-debtors executed a possessory mortgage-deed in favour of Bankey Lal for a sum of Rs. 65,000 under which it was shown that a sum of Rs. 25,000 had been left with the mortgagee out of the entire consideration of Rs. 65,000 for payment to one Lala Nandlal Shah. The case of the decree-holder is that no money was due to this gentleman, nor was this amount paid to him as agreed upon under the terms of the mortgage-deed. The decree-holder made an application for execution, praying for the attachment of this sum of Rs. 25,000 which according to him was lying with the mortgagee in deposit. The application was resisted by that objector, Bankey Lal, who pleaded that no such sum was held ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »