Allahabad Court October 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.
Mohammad Yunis Vs. Tilok Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All323; 153Ind.Cas.1058
1. This is a defendant's appeal against a final decree in a mortgage suit passed by the Court below under Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., and the so e question for consideration in the case is whether or not the application for the preparation of the final decree presented by the plaintiffs-respondents in the Court below was barred by limitation. The Court below overruled the plea of limitation raised by the defendant and held that 'under the peculiar circumstances of this case' the application was within time.2. The Court below was right in observing that the circumstances that led to the application for the preparation of the final decree filed by the plaintiffs were 'peculiar,' but this fact, in our judgment, was no justification for adding to or supplementing the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act as regards the computation of the period of limitation prescribed for such an application by that Act, as the Court below has done. The facts are undisputed and are as follows : On 5th...
In Re: an Advocate of Allahabad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All1
ORDER1. On 27th August 1934, this Court directed notices to issue to Mr. Kapil Deo Malaviya, Advocate, Allahabad, Mr. C.Y. Chintamani, Chief Editor, Leader Newspaper, Allahabad, and Mr. Krishna Ram, printer and publisher of the Leader Newspaper, Allahabad, to show cause why they should not be convicted and punished for the offence of contempt of the High Court committed by the publication of a passage in an article written by Mr. Kapil Deo Malaviya and published in the Leader on 10th June 1934. The particular passage appeared in an article headed as 'A scandalous situation : The Bar Council Election,' of which Mr. Malaviya is the author. The passage referred to in the notices is as follows:In this connection it is amusing to note that when a comparatively undeserving lawyer is raised to the Bench, which is a fairly frequent occurrence in our judicial history, it is generally claimed, etc.2. It is not disputed that Mr. Kapil Deo Malaviya is the author of the article in which this passag...
Rambohor Misir Vs. Chaturghun Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All58
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The trial Court has dismissed his suit on the ground that it is barred by the law of limitation. He sued on a promissory note, dated 18th June 1930. A few days before the expiration of the three years period, an endorsement was made on the promissory note purporting to be a recital of the payment of Rs. 10, and it was claimed that this saved limitation. The Court however has found that in spite of the endorsement and in spite of the fact that both parties at the time intended the endorsement to save limitation no payment was actually made, and in consequence the claim of the plaintiff-applicant had become time barred when the suit was filed.2. The decision is attacked on several grounds which I may take in order. In the first place, it is argued that as the endorsement was made on the promissory note and purported to recite a payment of Rs. 10, no evidence should have been admitted to prove t...
Lachhoo Vs. (Firm) Munnilal-babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All183
1. This is an appeal under Section 10, Letters Patent, against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court. After having heard the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the decision is correct and this appeal ought to be dismissed.2. There is no dispute about the facts and they may be stated briefly. The defendant to the present suit obtained a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decree passed by the first Court and two appeals were filed. The firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal had been sued through Babu Lal who died after the decree of the first Court during the pendency of the appeal. No efforts were made in any of the appeals to bring the legal representatives of Babu Lal on the record. We have not been told as to what the result of the appeals was, but this much is clear that the defendant to the present suit even after the decision of the appeal had some sort of a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal and ...
Lachhoo Vs. Firm Munni Lal-babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.577
1. This is an appeal under Order 10 of the Letters Patent against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. After having heard the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the decision is correct and this appeal ought to be dismissed.2. There is no dispute about the facts and they may be stated briefly. The defendant to the present suit obtained a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal. Both parties were dissatisfied with the decree passed by the first Court and two appeals were filed. The firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal had been sued through Babu Lal who died after the decree of the first Court during the pendency of the appeal. No efforts were made in any of the appeals to bring the legal representatives of Babu Lal on the record. We have not been told as to what the result of the appeals was but this much is clear that the defendant to the present suit even after the decision of the appeal had some sort of a decree against the firm of Chiranji Lal Babu Lal an...
Kanta Tewari and anr. Vs. Sheo NaraIn Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All123; 159Ind.Cas.44
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of land, removal of certain constructions put upon it by the defendants and for damages and induction. The first Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim; but on appeal the lower appellate Court has decreed it. Its findings are unfortunately not so categorical as they ought to have been, but there is no doubt that what the learned Judge has found is that the land in dispute has been used by the plaintiffs as their Court yard (Sahan darwaza). They had possession over it by having cattle troughs (churnies) and a platform, (chabutra) at this spot; and that the defendants had no possession over the land at all.2. Learned advocate for the defendants-appellants relied strongly on the case of Manbahal Rai v. Ram Ghulam Pandey 1927 All. 633, and contends that the plaintiffs being mere licensees have no right to maintain this action in their own name. In the case of Manbahal Rai v. Ram Ghulam Pandey 1927 All. 633, d...
Akhlaq Ahmad and ors. Vs. Mt. Karam Ilahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All207; 153Ind.Cas.599
Collister, J.1. This matter arises out of a report of the Stamp Reporter. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a sale-deed which had been executed by her on 17th October 1926, in favour of defendants 1 and 2 was void and ineffectual as against her. The plaint was stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 10 only. The defendants appealed, but their appeal was dismissed, and they have filed a second appeal in this Court, and on both appeals, they have paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 only. The Stamp Reporter is of opinion that Rs. 115 is now due from the plaintiff-respondent and Rs. 230 from the defendants-appellants.2. The learned Government Advocate supports the view taken by the Stamp Reporter while counsel for the plaintiff pleads that his suit was under Section 42 Specific Relief Act, and that since he was asking for no consequential relief and was prepared to accept the consequences of not having claimed any such relief the plaint was property stamped. In Radha Krishna v. Ram Narain : AIR1931...
Ram Nath and anr. Vs. Chiranji Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All221; 155Ind.Cas.136
Sulaiman, C.J.1. A suit was brought on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 9th December 1918 executed by the deceased father of the defendants-appellants in favour of the deceased predecessor of the plaintiffs, whose executors the latter are. In the mortgage deed it was recited that money was required for the payment of a certain antecedent debt and for the purposes of two shops located at Muttra and Delhi respectively. On 28th June 1922 a sum of Rs. 3,000 was paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee without specifying any part of the mortgage debt to which it was to be appropriated. It is now found that the shop in Muttra was a lace shop and was an ancestral business; but that the shop at Delhi was a cloth shop and was not ancestral, though it was a family business. There is no finding as to how long this shop had been in existence before the mortgage deed was executed, but there is a finding that it had been in existence for a number of years. The defence inter alia was that, there was ...
Jagannath Vs. Inderpal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All236; 153Ind.Cas.172
Kendall, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit allowing an appeal from a decree and order of the trial Court remanding the case for decision on the remaining issues. The order covers two suits for the preemption of two different properties in the town of Pilibhit. The parties to the suit are Hindus. The plaintiff-respondent claimed that there was a custom of preemption in the Kasba of Pilibhit, and based his suit on that custom. It was denied by the defendant-appellant that any such custom existed. The trial Court found that the custom had been proved, but that it had fallen into-disuse. The lower appellate Court while agreeing that the custom had been proved, disagreed with the decision that it had fallen into disuse, and therefore required the trial Court to proceed to come to a finding on the remaining issues. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the decisions of both the Courts below that the custom of pre-emption had been proved...
ishwar Dayal Vs. Anna Saheb and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All100; 152Ind.Cas.814
1. This is an office report which raises the question of court-fee payable on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court by the defendant-appellant. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the question of court-fee payable in appeal, as that matter will be disposed of by the taxing officer and, possibly* by the Taxing Judge. As regards the court-fee payable on the plaint, the matter has been judicially determined by the lower Court and should be disposed of by this Bench.2. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for enforcement of a mortgage, dated 5th July 1924. The sum claimed under that mortgage was Rs. 2,06,091-10-3. In para. 7 of the plaint it was alleged that besides the mortgage in suit the plaintiffs had a prior charge under a mortgage deed, dated 24th June 1923. The principal sum advanced thereunder is said to be Rs. 65,000. In the concluding paragraph of the plaint it is prayed that the mortgaged property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »