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.
Ch. Dalip Singh Pandit Kundan Lal Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All19
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit instituted by him against the defendant railway. The circumstances which led to the litigation between the parties are as follows: In June 1929 the plaintiff consigned from Chahra Gugor railway station to Agra Fort some sleepers which were carried by the defendant in 56 waggons. The plaintiff's case was that the goods sent were 'third class unserviceable wood, scrap sleepers fit for firewood only' and that the weight of the goods sent was 700 tons equal to 19,055 maunds and 22 seers. The plaintiff contended that the freight for 19,055 maunds and 22 seers according to schedule rate was Rs. 94 per 16 ton waggon plus Rs. 5 for terminal charge and at this rate the total charge worked out at Rupees 4,331-4-0 while the total freight collected by the railway was Rupees 7,984 for 25,525 maunds at the rate of Annas 4 and 11 pies per maund. According to the plaintiff there was an over charge to the extent of Rupees 3,652-12 ...
Beni Prasad Vs. Mt. Parwati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All780
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. The order in this case (First Appeal from Order No. 140 of 1932) will also govern and dispose of Civil Revision No. 543 of 1932. Beni Prasad is the uncle of one Mt. Shanti who is a minor. Mt. Parbati, the own sister of the minor is the wife of one Yagudatta. The minor, who lives with them, owns some movable property which is in the hands of Mt, Parbati and her husband who both reside at Hathras which is within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Aligarh. Beni Prasad made an application to the District Judge of Agra fwhere he himself resides praying that he should be appointed to act as guardian of the person and property of minor. The learned District Judge of Agra found that at the time the application was made by Beni Prasad the minor was residing at Hathras and her property was in possession of her sister and sister's husband at that place. He therefore held that the Court having jurisdiction was the District Judge of Aligarh and returned the application t...
Pandit Beni Prasad Vs. Musammat Parvati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.217
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. The order in this case (First Appeal, from Order No. 140 of 1932) will also govern and dispose of Civil Revision No. 543 of 1932.2. Beni Prasad is the uncle of one Musammat Shanti who is a minor. Musammat Parbati, the own sister of the minor is the wife of one Yagudatta. The minor, who lives with them, owns some movable property which is in the hands of Musammat Parbati and Her husband who both reside at Hathras which is within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Aligarh. Beni Prasad made an application to the District Judge of Agra where he himself resides praying that he should be appointed to act as guardian of the person and property of minor. The learned District Judge of Agra found that at the time the application was made by Beni Prasad the minor was residing at Hathras and her property was in possession of her sister and sister's husband at that place. He, therefore, held that the court having jurisdiction was the District Judge of Aligarh and returne...
Radha Mohan Vs. Mt. Riaz Fatmah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All37
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising oat of a suit for a declaration and for possession of a plot of land which is alleged to be a grove. It appears that in 1898 this grove, along with some zamindari property, was leased by the plaintiff to the defendant's father for 20 years, the term of which was subsequently extended by a period of seven years. This lease expired in 1925 but the defendant continued to remain in possession of this property. The plaintiff had acquired this grove by purchase from Government. The plaintiff first brought a suit in the Revenue Court for the ejectment of the defendant treating him as a tenant. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title and said that the land was not in the patti which belonged to the plaintiff. Instead of fighting out this question the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit and has brought the present suit in the Civil Court. The Courts below have decreed the claim. The question of jurisdiction was raised in all the Courts, ...
Jadu Teli Vs. Mahboob Raza Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All810; 150Ind.Cas.394
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal from, an order remanding a suit, ft appears that the plaintiff at first brought a suit in July 1930 and then applied to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The Court granted the application in the following terms:The suit be withdrawn and be filed afresh. But before filing fresh suit costs of defendant amounting to Rs. 20 will be deposited in the Court if the same have not been recovered by the defendant earlier.2. In August 1930, the plaintiff filed a fresh suit without having first deposited the costs of the previous suit. Some written statements were filed in which no objection as to this effect was taken. On 3rd December 1930, the plaintiff deposited the amount in Court. Then a written statement was filed on 5th December 1930, in which the point was raised that the amount not having been deposited before the institution of the suit, the suit was not maintainable. The Court however did not dismiss the suit forthwith. On ...
S.H. Jhabwala and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All690; 145Ind.Cas.481
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by 27 accused persons in what is known as the Meerut Conspiracy case. The trial has become somewhat notorious on account of its unprecedented duration. All the accused persons, except Hutchinson, were arrested in March 1929, (Hutchinson was arrested in June of the same year) and have all this time, except for the period during which some of them were released on bail, been detained in jail. The trial commenced in the Court of the Committing Magistrate on a complaint filed on 15th March 1929, and on a supplementary complaint against Hutchinson on 11th June 1929.2. The entire proceedings have now lasted for nearly four years and a half. This is accounted for as follows: (1) The preliminary proceedings before the Magistrate took over seven months, resulting in the commitment of the accused to the Court of Session on 14th January 1930; (2) in the Sessions Court the prosecution evidence took over 13 months; (3) the recording of the statements of the accuse...
(Rao) Masoon Ali Khan Vs. (Rao) Ali Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Rao Masoom Ali Khan Vs. Rao Ali Ahmad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Balkaran and ors. Vs. Ajodhya Kalwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934All88
Kendall, J.1. This is a second appeal against an order of the 2nd Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, reversing: the order of the executing Court. The-circumstances are briefly that the decree-holder, in execution of a simple money decree, had attached 3 plots of land in which the judgment-debtor, the present appellant, held an interest under what is described as a perpetual lease executed in his favour by the landlord on 23rd September 1927. The judgment-debtor objected to the sale of this property on the ground that his interest could not be sold: under the provisions of Section 23(1), Agra. Tenancy Act, 1926, for although the lease, purported to give him heritable and transferable rights in the plots, he was nevertheless under the provisions of the Act nothing more than a non-occupancy tenant. The executing Court and the Court of first appeal have considered the matter with reference to a number of decisions,, and in reversing the order of the executing Court the learned Additi...
Muhammad Sajjad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All742; 145Ind.Cas.526
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Meerut at Muzaffarnagar passed on a reference made by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector had awarded Rs. 283-13-4 as compensation. The learned Additional District Judge found the market value of the land acquired to be Rs. 1,330-4-3. Accordingly he allowed that amount as compensation.2. He however disallowed 15 per cent on that amount under Section 23(2), Land Acquisition Act. The present appeal is limited to a claim of Rs. 199-8-7, being 15 per cent on the market value for compulsory acquisition. It was not through an oversight on the part of the learned Additional District Judge that 15 per cent for compulsory acquisition was not allowed to the appellant. The learned Judge has disallowed it, as, to quote his own words, 'they (the applicants) have not claimed it.' The learned Judge was apparently of opinion that 15 per cent on the market value can be allowed only if...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »