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.
Municipal Board Vs. Ram Kishan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All785; 147Ind.Cas.186
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra awarding a sum of money to the' plaintiff. Two points have been urged in appeal: Firstly, that the claim was barred by limitation and secondly, that the order striking out the defence of the defendant-appellant was unjust and irregular and the suit should have been tried on its merits. We shall deal with the point of limitation first. The plaint sets forth that the plaintiff is a contractor and that he carried out certain works detailed in the Appendix to the plaint on behalf of the defendant, the Municipal Board of Agra; that the plaintiff found that the Board was making delay in payments and that the plaintiff served statutory notice on 19th! June 1928 informing the Board that unless the amount claimed was paid within two months, interest at 2 per cent per mensem would be charged from the defendant; that the defendant has only paid a portion of the amount due to the plaintiff and that a sum now...
Mt. Jaqrani and ors. Vs. Gaya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All856
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a declaratory suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents. The pedigree set up by the plainitiff-respondents which is to be found at p. 24 of the paper-book has been held to be proved by the lower appellate Court. Jageshar was the last male owner of the property in respect of which the suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted. Defendant 1, Mt. Jagrani, is the widow and defendant 2, Mt. Dulra, is the daughter of Jageshar. Gaya Pande and Chhedi Pande, plaintiffs-respondents, are the next male reversioners of Jageshar. This finding of the lower appellate Court is one of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal.2. Mt. Jagrani executed a mortgage deed on 8th February 1912, in favour of one Deoki. On 21st June 1920 she executed a deed of gift in favour of Mt. Dulra and one Kamta, who is the son of Mt. Dulra's husband's brother. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit to obtain a declaration th...
Musammat Jagrani and ors. Vs. Gaya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.977
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a declaratory suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondents.2. The pedigree set up by the plaintiff-respondents which is to be found at p. 24 of the paper book has been held to be proved by the lower Appellate Court. Jageshar was the last male owner of the property in respect of which the suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted. Defendant No. 1 (Musammat Jagrani) is the widow and defendant No. 2 (Musammat Dulra) is the daughter of Jageshar Gaya Pande and Chhedi Pande, plaintiffs-respondents, are the next male reversioners of Jageshar. This finding of the lower Appellate Court is one of fact and cannot be challenged in second appeal.3. Musammat Jagrani executed a mortgage deed on February 8, 1912, in favour of one Deoki. On June 21, 1920, she executed a deed of gift in favour of Musammat Dulra and one Kamta, who is the son of Musammat Dulra's husband's brother. The plaintiff-respondents instituted a s...
Emperor Vs. Tohfa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933All759
King, J.1. Tohfa and his two sons, Harbans and Chandar were convicted by a Magistrate of the Meerut district on a charge under Section 186, Penal Code. On appeal they were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against their acquittal. The facts of the case are not in dispute. One Abdulla sued Tohfa in the Munsif's Court at Ghaziabad on the basis of a pronote. He filed his suit on 10th February, and on 13th February, he applied to the Court for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5. The Munsif allowed the application in the following terms:Let notice go to the defendant to show cause why the application be not allowed. Interim attachment meanwhile. Let B. Onkar Nath. vakil do the work of attachment.2. Accordingly on 10th February, B. Onkar Nath went to Tohfa's village accompanied by the plaintiff in the suit and his pairokars. Tohfa and his sons came out of the house armed with lathis. They adopted an offensive attitute and said...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›