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.
Om Prakash Vs. Jugal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All847; 153Ind.Cas.404
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal from a decree and order of the learned District Judge of Moradabad, reversing the decision of the trial Court in a suit filed by the plaintiff's under Section 222, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The plaintiffs sued as co-sharers, and the defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiffs had no title to the estate of Jiwan Ram. The circumstances briefly were that there had been a dispute between the present plaintiff appellants and the present defendant-respondents as to the title to the property left by Jiwan Ram, and in 1927 the matter had been agitated in the Revenue Courts, which had decided in favour of the present plaintiff-appellants. The land revenue of the mahal in which both parties were recorded as co sharers having fallen into arrears, a. shop which had been the property of Jiwan Ram and which bad passed into the possession of the present plaintiff-appellants owing to the decision given by the Revenue Courts in 1927 was put up to sa...
Mansab Ali Khan Vs. Mt. Nabiunnisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All702; 150Ind.Cas.443
Kendall, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal from a decree and order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Meerut, modifying the decision of the trial Court and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The facts have been given sufficiently fully in the judgments of the Courts below. It is only necessary to say here that the plaintiffs-appellants have by inheritance or transfer acquired the rights in 12/24 sihams in the property in dispute, and that they claim possession over this share of the whole of the property in dispute on the ground that the contesting defendant-respondent, Mt. Nabiunnissa, had sold certain property to the contesting defendant-respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Pitam Singh and Jai Karan Singh. The defendant Mt. Nabiunnissa pleaded that on the death of her mother who had originally owned the property there bad been an agreement between the heirs that she (Mt. Nabiunnissa) should remain in possession of the property on condition that she became liable to pay all the debts due from ...
Niranjan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All811; 150Ind.Cas.1140
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of one Niranjan who has been sentenced by the appellate Court to 9 months' Rule I, under Section 411, Penal Code. The application has been argued only on legal grounds which are expressed in the first ground of revision as follows:Because the joint trial of the applicant with Musai and Badri is illegal and the whole trial is vitiated.2. The trial Court framed two charges as follows: A charge sheet against Niranjan, Musai and Badri charging them that on 5th September 1933, they were found in dishonest possession of two bullocks of Dwarka which they knew or had reason to believe to be stolen and therefore were guilty of an offence under Section 411, Penal Code. There was also a charge sheet framed against; Musai with two heads firstly, that on 16th September 1933, he was in dishonest possession of a bullock belonging to Ramcharittar which he knew or had reason to believe to be stolen and thereby committed an offence under Sec...
Rameshar Lal Bisheshar Lal Vs. JainaraIn Nathu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All960; 153Ind.Cas.224
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by firm Rameshar Lal-Bisheshar Lai, defendant 2, against whom a suit of the plaintiff firm Jainarain Nathu Ram has been decreed by the Courts below. As a great deal has been said before me in the course of arguments-regarding the pleadings, I propose to set them forth in some detail. The plaintiff impleaded firm Hari Ram and Parshottam Das as defendant 1 and firm Rameshar Lal-Bisheshar Lai, as defendant 2. His case was that in the beginning of January 1927, he entered into a contract with the Krishna Sugar Works Jhusi, Allahabad, for the supply of 2,500 maunds of gur at the rate of Rs. 5-4-0 per maund. The plaintiff on 26th January 1927, arranged with Hari Ram-Parshottam Das either for the supply of this quantity of gur to Jhusi Sugar Mills at the rate of Rs. 4-14-0 per maund or arranged for the purchase of this amount of gur from them at the rate of Rs. 4-14-0 per maund. In the plaint it is stated that jthe plaintiff sold his contraot with the Jhusi Suga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›