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.
Babu Ram Vs. Ram Charan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1023
ORDERKendall, J.1. This application for revision against a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Shikohabad has some peculiar features. One Jagannath wished to institute two civil suits against Lala Pati Ram valued at Rs. 500. He had no money to pay court fees and other expensas. The applicant Babu Ram however undertook to raise the necessary amount by subscription, and he proceeded to do so on the understanding that if the suits were successful, half the decretal amount would be paid to the subscribers. The present plaintiff-opposite party, Ram Charan Lal, was one of the subscribers, and he paid on two occasions sums of Rs. 12 and 55 to Babu Ram, who handed the money over to the pleader Jagannatb Prasad for the purchase of the stamps. For some reason or other the parties fell out, and the plaintiff-opposite-party brought the present suit against the applicant Babu Ram and the pleader for the recovery of the amount which he had subscribed. The trial Court for reason...
Pandit Sadayatan Pande M.L.C., Proprietor of the Firm Rai Saheb Sri Ne ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.135
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit which has been dismissed on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation. Previous to the present suit the plaintiff had instituted a suit on the same cause of action against two sets of defendants. An objection was taken that the suit was defective on account of multifarious ness because different causes of action arising against different defendants had been wrongly joined together. The Court expressed the opinion that there was this serious defect and actually ordered that the plaintiff should elect as to which of the two classes of defendants he would like to proceed against. After this order was passed, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code for withdrawal of the suit against one set of the defendants with permission to institute a fresh suit against them afterwards and chose to proceed with the suit as against the remaining defendants. The Court ordered the suit to...
Jawahar Lal Vs. Mathura Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All661
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This case came up for disposal before a Single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Division Bench which baa referred it to a larger Bench on account of some apparent conflict of opinion on the interpretation of Articles 75 and 80, Lim. Act.2. On 5th September 1927 the defendants executed an unregistered instalment bond for Rs. 540 stipulating to pay the amount with interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem by instalments of Rs. 25 a month within one year and nine months. It was further provided that in case the fixed instalments or the interest thereon were not paid for any two successive months then in either case the creditor would be authorized to realize the entire amount of principal and interest together with costs in a lump sum either within the stipulated period or after it from the person and property of the debtors. The 20 instalments of Rs. 25 together with the last instalment of Rs. 40, would, if paid, have sufficed to discharge the entire amount ...
Jangali Tewari Vs. Naubat Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All680
Young, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Ballia. The plaintiffs brought a suit for a declaration of title as grove-holders of certain groves; and alternatively for possession. I do not need to go into the facts of this case, as I am deciding it upon a preliminary point. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the lower appellate Court, and the defendant appeals. The appellant in appeal urges that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. He relies upon Section 121, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. That section is as follows:At any time during the continuance of a tenancy the tenant of a holding may sue that land holder, or any person claiming to hold through the land holder, whether as tenant or' rent free grantee or otherwise, for a declarations of his right as tenant.2. If the suit comes under this section, Schedule 4, Group B, No. 15, bars the Civil Court from having jurisdiction to hear it. According to the Full Bench decis...
Jamuna Dube Vs. Mathura Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All676
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for a declaration was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff purchased a certain zamindari share of 3 gandas odd which had be longed to the defendants in a certain patti by auction-sale on the 23rd October 1914 and obtained possession of that share. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that along with that share he purchased the grove of the defendant situated in plot No. 817. The sale certificate does not mention any grove but the contention is that because this grove was the zamindari grove of the defendants it would pass to the plaintiff. It was also not shown by the plaintiff that the grove was mortgaged in the mortgage deed on which the decree was obtained by the plaintiff. The defence was that the grove in question was a tenant's grove and had been the grove of the ancestor of the defendants from 1840 and this fact was established to the satisfaction of the lower appellate Court from the khasra of 1840 ...
Lalji Sahai and anr. Vs. Parsottam Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All687; 153Ind.Cas.678
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree of the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that he was the sole owner of a certain shop and that defendants second set, that is, defendants 3 and 4 had no concern with it and that no portion of the shop was liable to sale in execution of the decree of defendants first set against defendants second set. The plaintiff Parsottam Ahir had a brother Gaya Earn and Gaya Ram had two sons Sheomangal Ram defendant 3 aged 22 and Parmeshar Ram defendant 4 aged 20, the ages being taken from the plaint. These persons formerly formed a joint family and on the 9th of May 1916 there was a deed of agreement to partition the property of the joint family which was signed by certain members of the joint family Parmeshar Earn, Gaya Earn and Bhawanidin and one Mt. Khushali. Sheomangal Earn and Parmeshar being minors at that time did not sign the agreement to refer to arbitrat...
Dip Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All872; 155Ind.Cas.540
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The accused, Dip Chand, was charged under Section 353, Penal Code, the allegation being that he gave two or three slaps to a canal patrol. The facts are that the naib tahsildar had gone to village Malikpur to make collections of land revenue and canal dues. Certain persons including the accused represented to the naib tahsildar that the entries regarding the canal dues were incorrect. The tahsildar sent for the canal patrol who started explaining the entries. Dip Chand and others objected and said that they were incorrect. Upon this the canal patrol abused Dip Chand and Dip Chand gave him two or three slaps.2. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the patrol was not a public servant in the execution of his duty at that moment. He therefore did not convict Dip Chand under Section 353, Penal Code, but convicted him under Section 323, Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100. This conviction has been upheld by the learned Judge who has also mai...
Mathura Prasad and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All617
Kendall, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree and order of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun reversing the decision of the trial Court. The plaintiff's suit was one for recovery of a sum of money in the following circumstances : In 1919 the plaintiff sold some property to the defendant for Rs. 400 executing a sale deed in his favour to which I shall refer later. Out of the sale consideration a sum of Rs. 282-8-0 was left in the hands of the vendee to be paid to a creditor of the vendor's named Bishan Dial. The money was not paid to Bishan Dial and the plaintiff-respondent had to pay a sum of Rs. 657 odd in consequence of the failure of the appellant vendee to fulfil the terms of the contract contained in the sale deed. The present suit therefore was one to recover this sum as damages from the vendee-appellant.2. The reason given by the appellant for failure to carry out the terms of the contract was that he was not put in possession of the property which had been sold to hi...
Baldeo Vs. Lachhmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All810; 153Ind.Cas.857
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in civil revision by a defendant against an interlocutory order of the Munsif of Mirzapur. The case was filed in the Court of the Munsif, the plaint being presented by Mr. Kanita Prasad Tandon vakil. Later it was discovered that in the vakalatnama which Mr. Kamta Prasad had signed on the back in token of acceptance his name had been omitted from the body of the vakalatnama. It is obvious that this was a mere clerical error and that when the plaintiffs executed the vakalatnama they undoubtedly intended to appoint Mr. Tandon and when Mr. Tandon signed the vakalatnama, as accepting that appointment he intended to act for the plaintiffs. An application was made to the Munsif to correct the vakalatnama by entering the name of Mr. Tandon in the body of the vakalatnama and the Munsif has directed that that correction should be made.2. It is against this order that the revision has been filed on the ground that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to make suc...
Lalman and anr. Vs. Shanker Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All832; 152Ind.Cas.101
Niamatullah, J.1. The sole question which calls for decision in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs' appeal in the lower appellate Court was incompetent, as held by the learned Additional District Judge. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought by the appellants for profits under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act 3 of. 1926. The claim related to three 'pattis' including patti No. 8. It was pleaded by the defendant inter alia that the plaintiffs had no right to receive profits of any part of patti No. 8. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to half of the profits of that patti, the other half admittedly belonging to the defendant. The latter, however, alleged that the plaintiffs' half-share had been in his possession for a considerable length of time under a usufructuary mortgage. The question thus arising between the parties was whether, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any part of the profits of patti No. 8 by reason of the fact that their share had been the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »