Allahabad Court March 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.
(Lala) Shiam Lal Vs. Mohamad Ali Asghar HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All174; 153Ind.Cas.73
Bajpai, J.1. This is a second appeal by Lala Shiam Lal who was defendant 4 in a suit brought by Muhammad All Asghar Husain. This appeal is connected with Second Appeal No. 1512 of 1931 which was filed by Jagannath Prasad who was defendant 8 in the same suit. Both of these appeals might be disposed of by a single judgment.2. The facts are that one Hashmat was the owner of some immovable property. He died in 1886 leaving four widows, Mt. Sogha, Mt. Munira, Mt. Sabza and Mt. Chamari. He had two brothers surviving him, Aijaz and Baqar. We know nothing about the heirs of Baqar but we know that Aijaz' died in 1886 leaving behind him a widow, Mt. Niazunnissa, a son, Hamza Ali, and two daughters, Kaniz Bano and Shahr Bano. It is common ground that Hashmat was a Shia and not having left any children his property under the Shia Law would devolve upon his two brothers, Aijaz and Baqar. The plaintiff, Muhammad Ali Asghar Husain is a purchaser from Mt. Kaniz Bano, one of the daughters of Aijaz Husa...
Mahadeo Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All739
Bennet, J.1. This is a criminal appeal by three persons, Mahadeo Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Chhotku Singh, who have been convicted by a former Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur, Mr. B. Ahmad who, I am informed, has since been transferred. The learned Sessions Judge found that the four accused had attacked one Moti Singh at a panchayat and the deceased Gajadhar wanted to intervene and the four accused started to beat Gajadhar with lathis and one Ram Samujh who tried to save Gajadhar was also attacked and beaten. A report was made naming the four accused. Gajadhar was sent to hospital next morning. He had three external injuries on the head. He died at 9 a.m., and the post-mortem shows that the skull had been fractured and this was the cause of death. The learned Sessions Judge said in his judgment:According to the Learned Counsel for, the accused if the four accused persons struck together and it could not be known whose lathi caused the fatal injury they could not be held guilty und...
Municipal Board Vs. Abdul Aziz Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All795; 152Ind.Cas.792
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the Municipal Board of Bareilly through its Chairman against the defendants from a decree of the Munsif of Bareilly to whom the case had been transferred from the Court of Small Causes and who under Section 24(4), Civil P.C., is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes on that account. The Board claimed recovery of certain octroi dues alleged to be payable by the defendants on account of their introducing within the Municipal limits cart-loads of bricks without paying the proper duty. The defendants took the plea that a suit of this nature is not maintainable in the civil Court at all. It appears that the Municipal Board first proceeded under Section 155, Municipalities Act, 2 of 1916, in the Magistrate's Court, but the complaint for some reason or other failed. The Board then instituted the present suit which has been dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the suit did not lie.2. On behalf of the Board it is contended that th...
Sarju Prasad Vs. Shyam Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All802; 150Ind.Cas.1117
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal on behalf of a plaintiff whose suit for demolition of certain constructions by the defendants has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff is a zamindar of the whole village of Chargawan in Gorakhpur District and he brought a suit for demolition of certain constructions. The Munsif decreed demolition only of constructions marked E and the lower appellate Court decreed demolition of constructions marked B and D. The present second appeal is in regard to four constructions: A, a Saiban which was found by the lower appellate Court to be old, that is more than 12 years old. It is clear that the plaintiff cannot get a decree for the removal of A. Reference was made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant to a ruling. Jai Kishun v. Moti Chand (1906) 3 A.L.J. 627. In that case the lower appellate Court held as a fact that the possession of the defendant was not adverse and therefore that possession for more than 12 years would, not give ...
Mohammad Jan Khan Vs. Mt. Sundar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All884; 153Ind.Cas.855
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. The plaintiff took a transfer of a house by a sale from a sweeper woman. The only question in this case is whether that sweeper woman was the wife of the man she lived with and so could transfer legal titlo to the plaintiff or whether she was the kept woman or concubine of the man she lived with and title of the house would remain with the man's daughters by his first wife. The lower Court decided that there was no marriage. The plaintiff appeals.2. The facts are that Itwari, a sweeper, was married and had two children. His wife died or left him. He wished some one to look after his children. About 13 years before the suit a sweeper friend of his - Nanha - suggested that he should take this woman as his wife. Apparently, Nanha was acting as her guardian. She was a widow. Itwari took this woman, lived with her for 13 years and registered her as his wife when he gave notice in t...
Basdeo Sahai and ors. Vs. Man Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All906; 153Ind.Cas.691
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree and order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bulandshahr, modifying the decision of the trial Court. The suit was one brought by a zamindar for recovery of the price of kankar which had been dug up from the land in the occupancy holding of the defendants, second party. The occupancy tenants had the kankar removed by the first party of defendants who paid them, Rs. 100 for it. The zamindar claimed to own the kankar, and sued both the parties and obtained a decree against both from the trial Court, but the lower appellate Court has held apparently on the analogy of Section 41, T.P. Act, that as the purchasers of the kankar had acted in good faith they were under no liability to the plaintiffs-appellants. The liability that has been found by the trial Court is that the plaintiffs are the owners of the soil, and consequently of the kankar, in the sub-soil, and that the purchasers having taken away the kankar are bound to pay f...
Wazir Singh Vs. Nagar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All625
Bennet, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order by a Revenue Court to the following effect:he arbitrator has not taken any evidence and has not determined any issue. This award is thus materially irregular. It is therefore sat aside.2. This order was passed in a suit for arrears of rent amounting to Rupees 496-7-0. The Court was the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that is, of an Assistant Collector of the First Class. The question is whether a revision lies in this Court under Section 253, Agra Tenancy Act, which states:The High Court may call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any subordinate revenue Court and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court, etc.3. Learned Counsel argued that the word 'application' might refer to the application for filing the award. But it appears to me that the words suit' and 'application' must be considered in the terms of Schedule 4, which is divided in...
Collector of Meerut Vs. Chaudhary Risal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All681
Mukerji, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent, as a co-sharer, against several co-sharers, for a settlement of accounts and profits, under Section 227, Tenancy Act, 1926. The suit was defended by the Court of Wards alone as the manager of the estate of the appellant. The Court of Wards has since released the estate from its management. The other defendants did not contest the suit, as it appears that the entire property was managed by the Court of Wards on behalf of the appellant. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The appeal, on behalf of the present appellant, was dismissed by the District Judge. In the present appeal only two points have been urged before us. The first is that the respondent having failed to notify his claim, under Section 17, Court of Wards Act (Local Act 4 of 1912), it is not maintainable, and the second is that the suit has been treated by the Courts below as a suit against a lambardar and the decree granted on the ...
Chedi Lal Vs. Mt. Insar Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All712
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 157 damages from the defendant. The facts are simple. The plaintiff had a decree against the defendant and in execution of the decree he brought to sale some zamindari shares of the defendant. The auction sale took place on 21st May 1925, and the plaintiff purchased the shares and the sale was confirmed in favour of the plaintiff on 24th June 1929. Subsequent to that date on 25th July 1929, the plaintiff paid Rs. 128-5-0 as the revenue due for the current rabi kist of 1336 F. It is true that the revenue fell due on 15th May 1929, but the period of the rabi of 1336 P. extended up to 30th June 1929. The case for the plaintiff is based on the provisions of Sections 69 and 70, Contract Act. Section 69 lays down that a person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed ...
Sarsar Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All711
Bajpai, J.1. Sarsar Singh was convicted by a Magistrate under Section 424, Penal Code, and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 40 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. The conviction and sentence was maintained in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. The facts are that in execution of a decree against Sarsar Singh the amin went to the spot and purported to attach the crops of Sarsar Singh and appointed a shahana. The crops were later on removed by Sarsar Singh and on a complaint made by the shahana the accused was prosecuted and sentenced as mentioned above. A pure question of law was raised before the learned Sessions Judge and is also raised before me. It is said that no copy of the warrant of attachment had been affixed by the amin at the threshing floor where the crops had been stored nor was any copy affixed to the house of the judgment-debtor and therefore the provisions of Order 21, Rule 44, Civil P.C., were not complied with. It is said that there was no v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »