Allahabad Court January 1934 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.
Lekhraj Vs. B. Chandra Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All722
Mukerji, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the Court below was wrong in holding that the defendant-appellant was not holding adversely to the plaintiff-respondent.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for assessment of rent over a certain plot No. 38. It has been found that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent of a large area of land measuring 11.16 acres paying Rs. 119, as rent. One of these plots held by the appellant as a tenant is No. 37, which lies on the border of the plot No. 38, which is in dispute. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant occupied the plot No. 38 without payment of rent and asked for assessment of rent. The appellant's plea was that he held the land adversely to the plaintiff and had thus become the owner thereof. The suit was filed before an Assistant Collector. He remitted an issue to the Court of the Munsif as to the title to the land. The Munsif held that the appellant had matured in himself a proprietary title by adverse poss...
Mt. Haidri Begum Vs. Jawwad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All722a; 150Ind.Cas.149
King, J.1. This is an application under Clause 12, Letters Patent, praying that the applicant may be appointed guardian of the person of the minor Mazhar Ali Shah and that the opposite party may be ordered to produce him before the Court, and that the Court may be pleased to order the delivery of the minor to the applicant.2. The application arises out of the following facts : On 20th January 1928 the applicant Mt. Haidari Begum was married to the opposite party Syed Jawad Ali Shah. There was one child of the marriage, namely, Mazhar Ali Shah, who was born on 18th September 1928. The parties went to Europe in 1932 and after returning to India they were living at the house of Section Jawad Ali Shah in Gorakhpur in July 1933. On the 29th of July 1933 the applicant went to Lucknow to visit her parents. She went by the night train and as it was represented to her that there might be risk in sending the child by the train at night she left the child behind with her husband on the understand...
(Firm) Phul Chand Suraj Lal Vs. L. Chhadami Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All530
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by plaintiff whose suit has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 750. The plaintiff also had a claim for Rs. 250 damages for breach of contract and this has been dismissed and his revision is directed against the dismissal of this portion of his claim, The trial Court had evidence before it as to whether the breach of contract was by the plaintiff or by the defendant and it found as a finding of fact that the breach was by the plaintiff. In ground No. 3 it was argued that the Court placed an erroneous construction on documents filed by the plaintiff. But the finding of the Court was arrived at after a consideration of the oral evidence and of incidentally certain letters. I do not think that the question of the constitution of these letters is a matter which can be examined in revision. On the merits therefore there is nothing in this revision. The only point raised is in ground No. 1 on the question of jurisdiction. This ground sets ou...
Mt. Haidri Begam Vs. Jawad Ali Shah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All606; 150Ind.Cas.740
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal which purports to have been brought under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court under the following circumstances. A minor, Mazhar Ali Shah, is the child of Syed Jawad Ali Shah as the father and Mt. Haidri Begam as the mother. A dispute arose between the father and mother as to the custody of the minor. An application was made before this Court under Section 491 of the Criminal P.C., by Mt. Haidari Begam against Syed Jawad Ali Shah and it prayed that Mazhar Ali Shah should be brought before the Court and delivered to the applicant. The application was beard by one of the learned Judges of this Court and was dismissed on 20th September 1933. The present appeal is against that order.2. A preliminary point is taken by Mr. Ismail, the learned Counsel for the respondent Syed Jawad Ali Shah. It is to the effect that no appeal is maintainable under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Briefly, his argument is as follows. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of t...
Duli Chand Vs. Jwala Prasad and Sons
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All568
Bennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of a defendant against whom a decree has been passed by the Small Cause Court of Agra in favour of the plaintiff which is a bank. The plaintiff bank lent money to the defendant on an overdraft and a printed letter dated 18th May 1931 was sent by the defendant offering as security against this overdraft 'our R/Rts, sent to you for collection.' The finding is that certain railway receipts were sent to the bank to collect a certain sum from a consignee or consignees and that the bank endeavoured several times to collect these amounts but the consignees refused to accept the consignment. The letter of 18th May 1931 in the second paragraph stated:In case the R/Rs. are returned unpaid I will settle your account and will take delivery of the R/Rts. immediately I hear from you, failing which authorize you to clear and store the goods) etc.2. Now, a distinction must be drawn between a right and a duty. In the first paragraph of the lette...
Moti Ram Vs. Sri Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All684
Kendall, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits in which the plaintiff-appellant sued his co-sharers in two different mahals under Section 222, Agra Tenancy Act 1926, for the amount that he had paid as arrears of revenue on their account. The defence was that the plaintiff had himself realized the rents in the mahals either himself or in the person of his brother, Basti Ram, so that the arrears of revenue had been rightly realized from him as none of the defendant-respondents had been collecting profits. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's claim, but this decision was reversed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that, the plaintiff-appellant is proved to have collected the rents in the mahals so that, as the learned Judge has remarked:I do not see how the non-collecting co-sharers could be made liable to pay to another co-sharer who had himself made collections and particularly when it was not shown that the collections made by the plaintifi were less than the amount ...
Abdul Hadi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All829a
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application by Abdul Hadi and six others for revision of an order passed by the learned District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur, dismissing their appeals from an order passed by a Magistrate, Second Class, convicting them of offences under Sections 147 and 323, Penal Code, and sentencing them to fines. An application for revision was made to the learned Sessions Judge who dismissed it. It appears that the complainant Bhagwan Das and the applicants had had a dispute of long standing in respect of a piece of land described as 'khandsar and phulwar,' which admittedly belonged at one time to one Muhammad Bakhsh who died some time after 1901 leaving a will by which the land in dispute was bequeathed to Muhammad Sadiq and Ilahi Bakhsh, two of his four sons. He had also a daughter Mt. Sakina. The will purports to bequeath other properties to Mt. Sakina and his other sons. The will is on the record of this case and may be accepted as a genuine document. Muhammad Sadiq ...
Mt. Ram Kali Vs. Kamta Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All404
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an. order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Mainpuri, returning the applicant's plaint for presentation in the proper Court. The case has some peculiar features. The plaintiff applicant sued for what is called her share of the profits of an occupancy holding, alleging that the defendants were in possession of the holding, that she was a joint occupancy tenant with them, and that she was entitled to a half share in the profits for the years in suit. The Judge of the Small Cause Court decided that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it has been contended in revision that he is wrong. On behalf of the applicant I have been referred to the case of Amjad Ali v. Azizuddin : AIR1931All551 , in which Mr. Justice Niamatullah held that Article 31 of the first schedule of the Provincial Insolvency Act would not apply to a suit for mesne profits by persons in respect of their shares of an occupancy holding held in common ...
Secy. of State Vs. Mt. Son Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All424
Mukerji, J.1. This is a civil revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., which has arisen in the following circumstances: The respondent, who is unfortunately unrepresented before us, brought a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur for certain reliefs. She having failed there filed an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that the appeal was not liable to be rejected under the proviso to Rule 1, Order 44, Civil P.C., and being of that opinion ordered notice to issue to the Government. Pleader and to the respondent. When however the Government Pleader appeared, he wanted to contend that the appeal was liable to be rejected in view of the proviso to Rule 1, Order 44. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that the fact that he had allowed notice to issue precluded him from considering the question again. Accordingly he passed the following order:The application to appeal as pauper is allowed and notice should be i...
Mt. Ram Kali and anr. Vs. Bir Bhadarman Tewari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All463
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This revision has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court because of an apparent conflict between a ruling of this Court and that of the Calcutta High Court. It appears that a money decree was obtained on 30th April 1920 by Saghubir Prasad against Bachman Tewari, which was being executed for some years without complete satisfaction. On 13th November 1928 Bachman Tewari died, but apparently this fact was not then brought to the notice of the decree-holder who filed an application on 15th December 1928. The Court below has treated this application as an application for execution, but in reality it was an application praying for the transfer of the execution of the decree from the Court of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Gorakhpur, to the Deoria Munsifi on the ground that the judgment-debtor and his property were within the jurisdiction of that Munsifi. On 19th February 1929 the Court transferred the execution of the decree to the Deoria Court. On...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »