Allahabad Court December 1934 Judgments
Ajodhya Prasad Dube Vs. Mahabir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All293; 159Ind.Cas.39
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for the recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1333 and 1334 Fasli. The suit was filed upon the allegation that the rent was paid by the defendants in kind. The Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's suit for about Rs. 121. On appeal the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that there was no proper evidence to enable the Court to justly estimate the claim of the plaintiff.2. The facts are that two bahi khata jinsi (grain rent ledger), one for the year 1333 and the other for the year 1334, were filed by the plaintiff. The first of them was marked Ex. A and was prepared by Badri Lal patwari and the second was marked Ex. B and was prepared by Dwarka Prasad Patwari. These documents were presumably prepared under the provisions of Section 32, Clause (e), Land Revenue Act. They were however filed by another patwari and the plaintiff neither examined Badri Lal nor Dwarka Prasad, although...
Tag this Judgment!British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shanti Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All310
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Cawnpore rejecting an application filed by the applicant, the British India Corporation Ltd. Cawnpore, (hereinafter called the Company), praying that sanction be accorded to the proposed consolidation of the deferred and ordinary shares of the company and that 'the minute suggested be approved.' The application purported to be an application under Section 54(1), Companies Act, (Act 7 of 1913). The section runs as follows:(1) A company limited by shares may, by special resolution confirmed by an order of the Court, modify the conditions contained in its memorandum so as to reorganize its share capital, whether by the consolidation of shares of different classes or by the division of its shares into shares of different classes:Provided that no preference or special privilege attached to or belonged to any class of shares shall be interfered with except by resolution passed by a majority number ...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjanpal Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Harnaraini Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All285; 157Ind.Cas.192
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit for possession which was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Etah. The property in suit is a, share of 4 biswas in the village of Esauli. This property originally belonged to one Jiwa Ram who died on 27th August 1890. It is now admitted that it was ancestral property. Jiwa Ram also had other property which he had separately acquired. His widow, Mt. Hans Kunvvar, succeeded to the whole of his property and remained in possession up to her death on 12th February 1928. The plain tiff-respondent, Mt. Har Naraini Kunwar, is the sole surviving daughter of Jiwa Ram. She got possession of the separately acquired property on the death of her mother, Mt. Hans Kunwar, but she failed to induce the Revenue Court to enter her name in the register as being in possession of the property in Esauli. She therefore instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal and obtained a decree for possession, from the lower Court.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Bhawani Singh Vs. Baldeo and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All373
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by a Small Cause Court on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 145, Civil P.C. The plaintiff claimed that he had a decree in the Revenue Court against a third party and that in execution a buffalo and calf had been attached and entrusted to the defendants as superddars, that the defendants did not produce these animals for sale before the amin when required to do so and he therefore sued these defendants for the value of these animals. The lower Court has held that the plaintiff should have proceeded in the execution Court under Section 145, Civil P.C. and that that section bars a suit such as the present brought by the plaintiff. The Court has acted on a ruling in Piare Lal v. Sitaram 1929 All. 266, by Dalai, J. That case was similar and the learned Judge held that the Section 145 acted as a bar. He did not give any reasoning for this conclusion. The plaintiff claims that h...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmi Das Vs. Lakho Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All410
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on preliminary issues by a Small Cause Court. The plaintiff sued on a document dated 30th September 1930, to recover Rs. 365-2-0. The plaintiff alleged that Rs. 400 was due to him from the father of defendants, who was dead at that time, and that the defendants agreed to pay the amount and executed the document in suit. The lower Court, held that it, had not been proved that the document, was executed for consideration, and further it stated that defendant 1 forged the signature on the document of defendant 2. At the same time the Court held that defendant 2 was present when defendant 1 wrote the signature of defendant 2 on the document. The definition of a false document is given in Section 464, Penal Code, and it shows that for forgery a signature must be made by a person who knows that he has not got authority from the person whose signature he purports to make an it. As defendant 2 was present w...
Tag this Judgment!Sulaiman HusaIn Khan Vs. Sita
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All574; 155Ind.Cas.95
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by him for the recovery of a sum of money less than Rs. 500. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. There is therefore a preliminary objection that no second appeal lies because the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of small causes. The contention of the learned advocate for the plaintiff-appellant, however is that the suit ought to have lain in a Small Cause Court and the entire proceedings are vitiated and the proper order that I should pass in the present case is to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant and the preliminary, objection of the respondent it is necessary to state a few facts. The suit was filed in the Court of the Honorary Munsif at Shamshabad which Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended by the plaintiff that although he filed this suit in the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Deba Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All455
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff under the following circumstances:The plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad for arrears of maintenance and a compromise was entered into and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The Subordinate Judge held that a court-fee of Rs. 715 should be paid which was on ten times the sum periodically payable, Rs. 150 p.m., taken for ten years as Rs. 18,000. Subsequently the plaintiff applied for execution and an appeal was heard by this Court, and this Court held that the decree was merely a declaratory decree and could not be executed. The plaintiff made an application to the lower Court for refund of Rs. 715 court-fee. The amount seems to be incorrect as there should be a deduction of Rs. 10 for a declaratory decree. The lower Court has held that it has no power to order the refund under Section 151, Civil P.C., and that the remedy of the plaintiff, if any, lies in the H...
Tag this Judgment!Ewaz Singh Vs. Rani Dan Kuar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All503a
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The facts are that he brought a suit for profits against Thakurain Dan Kuer for the years 1332, 1333 and 1334 fasli on the allegation that he the plaintiff and Thaikuir Drigpal Singh, the husband of Thairkurain Dan Kuer, were joint usufructuary mortgagees of certain property, but Drigpal Singh, realised the entire profits during his lifetime and his widow realised the rest of the profits after the death of Drigpal Singh during the years in suit.2. It was pleaded by the defendant, Thakurain Dan Kuer, that the plaintiff, Ewaz Singh, was not entitled to any portion of the mortgagee rights although his name was included as a mortgagee. The suit was brought in the Revenue Court but upon this plea being raised by the defendant the Revenue Court remitted an issue to the civil Court under the provisions of Section 271, Agra Tenancy Act, Local Act 3 of 1926. The civil Court decided in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Gajadhar Prasad Vs. Dharma Nand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All716
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a defendant against a Small Cause Court decree. The plaintiff sued for arrears of salary at Rupees. 20 per mensem from 10th April 1930 to 31st August 1931. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was in his service for this period at this salary, but he pleaded payment to the plaintiff, and further that the claim would be time-barred. The lower Court held, that payment had not been made and that the suit was not time-barred. It held that the suit was governed by Article 102, Limitation Act, that the period of limitation ran from the date when the wages accrued, that the plaintiff was not paid regularly, hence it cannot be said that the wages accrued on any particular date, and that following a ruling in E. Young v. D. MacCorkindale (1871) 19 W.R. 159, plaintiff's wages would be due on the date on which he left the defendant's service, and that the period of limitation - three years - ran from that date. That ruling was giv...
Tag this Judgment!Makund Swarup Vs. Kishun Chand Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All382; 157Ind.Cas.261
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Makund Swarup, arising out of a suit brought by him for recovery of possession over a three-fourth share of mortgagee rights in the entire 20 biswas of village Ekka Tajpur alias Sikhra and a three-fourth share of mortgagee rights in the entire 20 biswas of mauza Rasulpur. The plaintiff further claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 2,500 principal and Rupees 933-6-0 interest on account of profits for the year 1332 Fasli and a sum of Rs. 4,000 principal and Rs. 1,133-6-0 interest on account of damages for the year 1333 Fasli. There was also a prayer for the recovery of Rs. 3,750 principal and Rs. 387-9-0 interest as mesne profits for the year 1334 Fasli and Kharif 1335 Fasli. The plaintM impleaded as defendants to the suit Thakur Karan Singh, Deep Chand and Tejpal Singh; minor sons of Somraj Singh and Raghubir Singh.2. The admitted facts which led to the institution of the suit may be stated. On 30th November 1904 a usufructuary mortgage was exe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »