Allahabad Court February 1934 Judgments
Brij Ratan Das and anr. Vs. Ram Govind Pande and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All652
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal in which a point of law has been raised on which there does not appear to have been any precedent and no ruling has been shown to me corresponding to the circumtances of this case. The plaintiff held a decree against defendant 2, and defendant 1 also held a decree against defendant 2. There was a sum of money, Rupees 1,000 belonging to defendant 2 deposited in the Court of the Magistrate. The decree of the plaintiff was for Rs. 1,010 and the decree of defendant 1 was for Rs. 451. Each party desired to obtain satisfaction for their share from the sum of Rs. 1,000 deposited in the Magistrate's Court. The question in issue in the present case is in regard to Rs. 451 out of that deposit which is claimed by defendant 1. Actually he did not receive payment of that sum until the present suit had been decreed in his favour by the Court of the Munsif on 7th May 1930, The case for defendant is that he obtained the proprietary title in this money by an order o...
Tag this Judgment!Jogar Nath Gir Vs. Sher Bahadur Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All329
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Jagarnath Gir arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Sher Bahadur Singh, for possession of zemindari property in two villages Gonijot known as Shankerjot, 16 annas and Kundaria Ganesh, 5 annas 4 pies. The plaintiff's allegations were that Onkar Bharthi was the absolute owner of the property in suit and that, he died leaving behind him his widow Mt. Murat and his mother Mt. Lakhraji, defendant 2, that after the death of Onkar Bharthi Mt. Murat entered into possession of the property as a limited owner and on her death Mt. Lakhraji, the mother, became entitled to the property. The plaint then goes on to say that after the death of Mt. Murat there were disputes regarding mutation in the Revenue Court and, although the first Court decided in favour of Mt. Lakhraji, the appellate Revenue Court decided in favour of Jagarnath Gir, who however was not the chela of Onkar Bharthi nor was the property a math property and Onkar Bharthi had n...
Tag this Judgment!Jagar Nath Gir Vs. Sher Bahadur Singha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.1078
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Jagarnath Gir arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Sher Bahadur tSingh, for possession of zemindari property in two villages, Gopijot known as Shanker-jot 16 annas and Kundaria Ganesh, 5 annas 4 pies. The plaintiff's allegations were that Onkar Bharthi was the absolute owner of the property in suit and that he died leaving behind him his widow Musammat Marat and his mother Musammat Lakhraji, defendant No. 2, that after the death of Onkar Bharthi Musammat Murat entered into possession of the property as a limited owner and on her death Musammat Lakhraji, the mother, became entitled to the property. The plaint then goes on to say that after the death of Musammat Murat there were disputes regarding mutation in the Revenue Court and, although the first Court decided in favour of Masammat Lakhraji, the appellate Revenue Court decided in favour of Jagarnath Gir, who, however, was not the chela of Onkar Bharthi nor was the property a m...
Tag this Judgment!Matuk Deo NaraIn Singh Vs. Vinayak Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All829; 150Ind.Cas.993
ORDERKing, J.1. The accused are charged with an offence under Section 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1928. The marriage was solemnized at Ramgarh in the Azamgarh district. The offence of performing, conducting or directing the child marriage was therefore committed in the Azamgarh district, and under Section 177, cr. P.C., the offence must ordinarily be tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.2. It is suggested that the case is also triable in the Benares district because the tilak ceremony took place in that district, and in view of the provisions of Section 179, Cr. P.C. In my opinion Section 179 has no application to the facts of the case. The accused are not charged with the commission of an offence by reason of having performed the tilak ceremony nor can the marriage be properly called a 'consequence' of the tilak ceremony.3. Section 182 also does not apply. The alleged offence, if committed, was certainly committed in the Azamgarh d...
Tag this Judgment!Parbhu Lal Vs. Badri
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All719
Mukerji, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court and to appreciate our judgment it would be necessary to know the facts with some detail. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the ejectment of the defendant from a part of a house on the allegation that the defendant had rented the same from the plaintiff, on a small rent, and having not paid the rent was in arrear and had refused to quit the premises in spite of notice to quit being given to him. The defence was that the defendant was an adopted son of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was old and unfit to do any work and that out of the earnings of the defendant the house had been purchased. The Court of first instance framed three issues, namely : (1) Whether the house in suit belongs exclusively to the plaintiff or does it belong jointly to the parties and was purchased by joint money? (2) Is the defendant an adopted son of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Mithoo Lal Vs. Mt. Chameli and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All805; 150Ind.Cas.653
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an office report which deals with a question of court-fee. It is said that the appellant, who was the defendant in the original suit and the appellant in the lower appellate Court paid less court-fee on his memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court than the amount which ought to have been paid and that the lower appellate Court heard the appeal taking it for granted that sufficient court-fee had been paid or the memo of appeal to it.2. The stamp reporter was at first of opinion that the deficiency in the court-fee paid in the lower appellate Court amounted to Rs. 66. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad, who appeared for the appellant, filed objections to the report questioning, inter alia, the correctness, of the amount of the alleged deficiency. The registrar, before whom the objection had been taken, directed the stamp reporter to reconsider the matter. The latter then declared the deficiency to be Rs. 20 which the appellant failed to pay within the time fixed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Murad Beg Vs. W. Shipley
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All837
Thom, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of money lent upon the basis of a promissory note.2. The plaintiff in the year 1924 was a clerk in the Horticultural Gardens at Lucknow. The defendant was resident in Lucknow. On 17th October 1924 the plaintiff lent to the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,000. The defendant in respect of this loan executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note and a relative receipt acknowledging the receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,000 Under the terms of the promissory note the rate of interest payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the loan was 12 percent, per annum. So much is a matter of admission between the parties The plaintiff alleges that on 16th October 1927 be was transferred to Saharanpur and on 17th October 1927 the day before the period of limitation expired in respect of the loan of 1924, the loan was renewed, the defendant executing a fresh promissory note and a relative receipt in favour of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Parmeshar Singh and ors. Vs. SitladIn Dube and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All626; 150Ind.Cas.1096
Sulaiman C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of an application for restitution and compensation under Section 144, Civil P.C. Suraj Narain Pal took a perpetual lease from the zamindar of sir lands measuring 35 bighas odd and obtained possession. The lessee's rights were subsequently sold to Sitladin and Bal Gobind, defendants-respondents. Later on the zamindar sold his rights to Jagarnath and others, the plaintiffs-appellants. A suit was brought for. recovery of possession by avoiding this lease and it was first decreed by the first Court on 21st January 1925. The plaintiffs, immediately thereafter obtained delivery of possession of the property on 5th March 1925. The defendants appealed to the lower appellate Court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on 17th February 1926. Two in fructuous applications for redelivery of possession were made and were struck off. On 5th March 1925, the plaintiffs obtained delivery of possession of the lands from the defendants. T...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Sahai Vs. Prabhu Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All695a; 150Ind.Cas.141
Kendall, J.1. This application is for the revision of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Orai, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff opposite party. The suit was for a sum of Rs. 240, said to be due as the rent of a shop and the plaintiff's case was that the business of a partnership had been carried on in that shop and that rent had always been Rs. 200, but that since his illness the defendant had been dishonestly carrying on his own business in the shop and had become liable for rent. The defendant raised the question of title to the shop, alleging that the shop had really belonged to his father, but that he had executed a fictitious sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff s father. The trial Court however without deciding this question of title to the shop, found that the defendant-applicant had been holding the shop from the plaintiff and had been paying rent to him as his tenant, and it therefore decreed the suit.2. It is claimed in revision that as the questio...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Lal Vs. Sh. Noor Mohd. and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All731
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree and order of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur, modifying the decision of the trial Court. The circumstances of the case are as follows: One Waris Ali owned four houses which are called P, Q, R and S. In 1917 he executed a deed of mortgage purporting to transfer tire houses P and Q to the present plaintiff-appellant. In 1922 he mortgaged all four houses to Noor Mohammad, the defendant-respondent. In the same year the plaintiff in executing a simple money decree against Waris Ali put all these four houses to sale and purchased them at auction. During the course of the execution proceedings an objection was made by Mt. Batul Bibi to the effect that she owned half the houses, and this objection was allowed. After his auction purchase the plaintiff-appellant applied for partition, and as a result of that partition between him and Mt. Batul Bibi the two houses P and Q were allotted to Mt. Batul Bibi, and R and S to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »