Allahabad Court August 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.
Babu Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Lal Kuer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All830; 147Ind.Cas.637
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants arising from a suit to recover arrears of annuity as a charge on some immovable property. It appears that one Himmat Singh had adopted a son, Ranjit Singh, and after the adoption he executed a registered will dated 30th March 1882 by which he provided that two of his daughters, Mt. Ganesh Kunwar and Mt. Lal Kun-war, should be maintained out of the profits of his property and they should be given Rs. 75 a year as an annuity each. He further provided that a relation of his named Lalta Singh should get an annuity of Rs. 32 a year. He also specifically provided that these annuities should be a charge on immovable property consisting of a 10 biswas share in village Satahin Dalippur. According to the finding of the lower appellate court Ranjit Singh does not appear to have challenged the will although it is suggested on behalf of the respondents that he died while still a minor. His heirs and transferees do not appear to have chall...
Abdul Samad Khan Vs. Anjuman Islamia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All56
Niamatullah, J.1. This case has been, laid before ns for orders on the plaintiff-appellant failing to make good an alleged; deficiency in the Court fees paid by him' on the plaint in the trial Court, on his memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court and on his memorandum of appeal presented in this Court.2. The suit was for a declaration thata deed of gift or endowment, dated 14th October 1925, apparently executed by Mirza Wazirali Beg in favour of defendant 1 in respect of the houses...is illegal and ineffectual as against the plaintiff and that the defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.3. A Court-fee of Rs. 20 was paid in the trial Court, as the relief sought was supposed to involve two declarations. The suit was valued at Rs. 2,000. No question, as to Court-fee arose in the trial Court. The suit was dismissed on the merits. An. appeal to the lower appellate Court was also dismissed. In that Court also a fee of Rs. 20 was paid and no questi...
Happu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All837
Young, J.1. Happu, caste Nat, as charged under Section 302, Penal Code, in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Bereilly the murdering one Babu Singh by administering arsenic to him. The learned Sessions Judge found Happu guilty and sentenced him to death. Happu appeals to this Court and e have before us an application for confirmation of the death sentence.2. On 21st November 1932, Babu Singh ate his evening meal and thereafter at the invitation of Happu went to his house. Happu gave Babu Singh a chatak of broken pera to eat telling him it as the parshad of Ganga and that he had kept it for him. Babu Singh ate the pera and returned home. He felt ill, and hen he reached his o n house he as attacked by vomiting and purging. He as taken to the hospital and died t o days later. These facts are proved. In a charge of murder by arsenic poisoning it sessential for the prosecution to prove: (a) That the person alleged to have been murdered died of arsenic poisoning (b) That the accused person a...
(Firm) Brijmohan Radhamohan Vs. (Firm) Bhagwandas Chanderbhan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All852
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a defendants application for the revision of an older passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Agra decreeing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff's suit was based on account books, and according to the applicant the plaintiff had sued previously on a running account from 5th November 1930 to 24th May 1931 and obtained a decree, and the applicant afterwards brought a counter suit against him and also obtained a decree. The grounds of the present application are that the present suit is based on an account in which the items arc dated from 29th March 1930 to 30lh September 1930, and that when the plaintiff brought his previous suit he was bound by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, to include these items so that the present suit was barred by Clause (2), Rule 2.2. This argument was apparently brought forward in the trial Court, and the finding of the Court was that the present suit is based on a different account No details are given to show how the Cour...
Reoti Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All73; 147Ind.Cas.380
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of 4 3/4 biswas share in village Pachheli Daranagar which originally belonged to Ahmad Hussainand Mohammad Hussein. In 1871 the mortgagors executed a simple mortgage-deed in respect of this property in favour of Sher Singh. In 1878 they made a second mortgage of this very property in favour of Itwari Lal. In 1885 Sher Singh brought a suit for sale on the basis of the previous mortgage-deed of 1871 and obtained a decree. Unfortunately he did not implead the subsequent mortgagee Itwari Lal. The property was put up for sale and was purchased at auction by Sher Singh himself and he appears to have obtained delivery of possession but, at any rate, his name is found to have been entered in the revenue papers in 1885. It is an admitted fact that by a partition award Sher Singh's son, Bijai Singh, alone got this entire property allotted to him and he obtained possession of it and got his name entered...
Gorakh Prasad Vs. Baldeo Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All902; 145Ind.Cas.970
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Rasra decreeing the plaintiff's suit against three defendants in the circumstances which have been described at length in the judgment of the trial Court. It is only necessary to repeat here that the parties in a quarrel had appointed two persons, Gorakh Prasad and Shaikh Abdul Jabbar, as their arbitrators to settle the dispute, and each side had deposited Rs. 250 with Gorakh Prasad on the agreement that if either of the parties to the dispute refused to abide by the award he should forfeit the amount that he had deposited. Some sort of an award was made by Gorakh Prasad which the plaintiff in the present suit refused to accept, with the result that Gorakh Prasad handed over the amount deposited by the plaintiff to the defendants, Sheo Ram and Jamna Ram. The present suit was brought to recover the amount from Gorakh Prasad on the ground that he was not justified und...
Lala and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All941
ORDER1. This case was referred to a Bench of two Judges by one of us in view of certain important questions of law that arise in it. In order to appreciate those questions it is necessary to state a few facts.2. It appears that information was received by the Police authorities that one Kuddu was concealing himself in a certain village at Jaunpur, and in order to effect his arrest a head constable Safdar Husain with three constables proceeded to the village. The Sub-Inspector was absent from the thana at that moment, and when he came to know that a police party had proceeded to arrest Kuddu he also went in the same direction. He met the raiding party in the way as they were coming back after having arrested Kuddu, but they informed the Sub-Inspector that certain other undesirable persons were also in the village. He, therefore, proceeded to investigate the matter and was going towards the house of Ahibaran. When he was at a short distance from the house he saw that Sobha and Raghunath ...
Kr. Lal Singh Vs. Mt. Chotey Beti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All854a
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of a half share in a property acquired at an auction-sale by the defendant Lal Singh. The mortgagee lights under a deed of mortgage devolved on Lal Singh and Bhikam Singh in equal shaies. Lal Singh brought a suit for sale on the basis of the deed against the mortgagors and impleaded Bhikam as a pro forma defendant. He obtained a decree for sale for the whole amount and in execution of that decree purchased the mortgaged property in his own name in lieu of the decretal amount, without paying any extra money out of his own pocket. Bhikam Singh died and it was on his death that his widow Mt. Chhotey Bibi brought the suit.2. The defendant admitted that Bhikam had a share in the mortgage money and in the decretal amount, but did not admit that he acquired a share in the property purchased at auction by the defendant He pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation and also by S 66 Civil P.C., and further plea...
Hafis Manzoor Ahmad and ors. Vs. Mohammad Abdul Jamil
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All842; 145Ind.Cas.948
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction and damages. The lower portion of a wall between the houses of the parties admittedly belongs to the defendants. Ten or eleven years before the suit the plaintiff was allowed to raise this wall by constructing its upper portion as part of the walls of his privy on the upper storey. The lower appellate Court has found that this construction by the plaintiff must have been made with the knowledge of the defendants, either with their consent or, at any rate, without any protest on, their part, and remained in existence for a long number of year, though not for more than 12 years. The defendants subsequently demolished the upper portion and prevented the plaintiff from reconstructing it. The plaintiff accordingly sued for damages for the demolition of that portion of the wall and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his construction. The first Court gave the plaintiff a ...
(Raja Yuvraj) Datt Singh Vs. Tejdatt Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All14
Niamatullah, J.1. These are two applications under Section 23, Civil P.C., made by Raja Yuvraj Datt Singh and Thakur Bhairon Singh respectively, who are defendants in a suit pendingin the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Aligarh. The suit was brought by the opposite party Madho Singh. The subject-matter of the suit is Oel Estate in, Oudh which belonged to Raja Krishna Dat Singh, who died on 15th December 1932, leaving him surviving his. widow Thakurain Anand Kunwar, who is also a defendant to. the suit, a son Thakur Tej Dut Singh and Yuvraj Singh, one of the applicants before us, who claims to be a son of Ram Dat Singh, a predeceased son of Raja Krishna Dat Singh, and to be entitled to succeed under a will alleged to have been executed by the late Eaja. It is not disputed that Tej Dat Singh is the legitimate son of Raja Krishna Dat Singh but there is controversy between the parties as to whether he is suffering from congenital idiocy.2. The plaintiff Mad ho Singh claims to be an agnate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »