Allahabad Court April 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.
Shyam Lal Vs. Budh Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All921; 150Ind.Cas.949
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the defendant had no interest in the village of Nurpur and for damages on account of breach of contract. Shyam Lal plaintiff, was the owner of some zamindari in two villages, Dewaichi and Nurpur, Both these properties were put up for sale in execution of a decree and Budh Sen, defendant, purchased them at auction for Rs. 21,000. The decree for which execution had been taken out was for Rs. 19,968 and thus there was a balance of Rs. 1032 in the hands of the defendant. The sale was confirmed on 25th July 1926 but before its confirmation, i.e., on 14th July 1926, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement. The terms of that agreement were that the property in Nurpur was to be re-transferred by a deed of exchange to the plaintiff and the defendant was to keep the property at Dewaichi. The plaintiff was also to give up 3 or 4 groves and a house and he also agreed to relinquish his ex-proprietary righ...
Puran Mal and anr. Vs. Shiva Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.86
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under the Letters Patent from a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court reversing the decree of the lower Appellate Court.2. It appears that one Inayat Khan and his three brothers were entitled to 5-6th share in a village, the remaining l-6th belonged to a lady. Instead of mortgaging his l-4th out of the 5-6th, Inayat Khan made a mortgage of 1-4th share in the village to the present plaintiffs. This came to about 17 bighas odd and the remaining l-4th of l-6th came to about 2 bighas. Subsequently a sale-deed was taken from the lady in the names of the sons of Inayat Khan and their wives whose names were entered in the revenue papers. The defendants, in execution of a money decree against the sons and their wives, got 1-4th of l-6th share belonging to the lady attached and put up for sale, and they purchased it themselves. Now, the plaintiffs have brought this suit for sale on the basis of their mortgage-deed and wish to enforce the security against the e...
Dhania Kuer and ors. Vs. Jai Jai Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All823
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for joint possession of certain plots. The plaintiffs are the inferior proprietors or under-proprietors of the plots and so are the defendants. Neither the tenants nor the superior proprietors are parties to this litigation. The defendants-first-party, for consideration, obtained possession of these plots which were in the hands of a tenant, Mt. Sundari, purporting to purchase it. They remained in peaceful occupation for 3 or 4 years when the present suit was brought for joint possession. The Courts below have dismissed the claim holding that the defendants have acquired sir rights in these plots. Admittedly, on taking possession from the tenants the defendants got their names entered in the revenue papers for the year 1333 Fasli. The first point urged in appeal is that, without showing that their names were entered in the papers for 1332 Fasli, the defendants cannot claim to have acquired sir rights. Under Section 4(d) all that is ...
Emperor Vs. Bachcha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All873; 153Ind.Cas.472
Collister, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against the acquittal of one Bachcha on a charge under Section 14, Dangerous Drugs Act, 2 of 1930. The case for the prosecution was that the Excise Inspector, Munshi Abdul Ghaffar Khan, received certain information on 4th November 1933, in consequence of which he took some police officials and a resident of Patehpur, named Mohammad Zaki, with him to mile 23 on the road which goes from Fatehpur to Cawnpore. The accused came along with certain other persons on an ekka and the Excise Inspector and the police officers stopped the ekka and searched it and also searched the person of the accused. On the seat of the ekka they found a packet containing a certain substance and on the person of the accused they found a match-box containing a similar substance. They took possession of the packet and the match-box and these were subsequently sent to the Chemical Examiner, whose report shows that the substance in the packet and als...
Mitthu Lal Vs. Mt. Chameli and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All777; 155Ind.Cas.800
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for profits which was filed by the plaintiffs under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act, in respect of the years 1332 and 1334 Fasli. The plaintiffs were Hub Lal and his son, Ram Rachpal. The former has since died. One Daryao Singh died leaving two widows, Mt. Surja and Mt. Jumna, and on his death his 10 biswas share in the village devolved upon the said widows. On 9th September 1921, the widows jointly executed a usufructuary mortgage of 5 biswas in favour of Hub La.l Mt. Jumna had a daughter by name Mt. Brindaban, who was married to Hub Lal, and plaintiff No. 2 namely, Ram Rachnal, as their son. On 9th January 1922, Mt. Jumna executed a deed of gift in respect, of 5 biswas (2 1/2 biswas being proprietary rights and 2 1/2 being mortgagee rights) to Mt. Brindaban and Ram Rachpal. It is not disputed that the rights of Mt. Brindaban have now devolved upon Ram Rachpal. Mt. Jumna died, about four years before the institution of this suit.2. T...
Bharat Singh Vs. Jeobodh Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All891; 150Ind.Cas.745
1. This is a defendant's second appeal and arises out of a suit for sale of a mortgage dated 1st December 1917, executed by Melhu Singh in favour of the plaintiff respondent for a sum of Rs. 140. The interest provided by the mortgage deed was Rs. 1-8-0 per cent. per month compoundable with yearly rests. The property mortgaged was the property belonging to the joint Hindu family consisting of Melhu Singh and his brothers Ram Daur. It is admitted that on the date of the mortgage the joint family consisted of Melhu Singh and Ram Daur, and neither of them had any sons. Ram Daur died in the lifetime of Melhu Singh, and thus Melhu Singh became solely entitled to the entire family property including the property mortgaged under the deed in suit. Melhu Singh died leaving certain daughters and daughters' sons. The defendants to the present suit were the daughters and the daughters' sons of Melhu Singh and certain transferees from the daughters. The suit was contested by one of the daughters, on...
Umed Singh Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1035; 150Ind.Cas.937
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out o a suit for sale brought on the basis of a second mortgage-deed dated 15th January 1917, executed in favour of the plaintiff by the original mortgagor. Previous to this there had been a prior mortgage of 13th June 1911, executed by the same mortgagor to the predecessor-in-title of the defendant-appellant under which the same two villages were successively mortgaged. In 1918 the mortgagor sold one of the mortgaged villages to the present defendant-appellant for Rs. 6,500 out of which Rs. 6,105 were left for payment to the first mortgagee and only Rs. 395 for parctis discharge of the second mortgage. The defendant made these payments on two dates in December 1918 and June 1919. Owing to the delay in the payment, additional interest had accrued under the first mortgage with the result that instead of Rs. 6,105 which were due under it on the date of the sale, a sum of Rs. 6,219 became due which was duly paid by the vendee. Having paid an extra a...
Balkaran Pandey and anr. Vs. Ram Badan Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All824; 152Ind.Cas.800
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the applicants whose application has been. dismissed on the ground of limitation. The facts which are admitted are that the applicants had obtained a decree for joint possession of a third share of certain, property against the defendants in the Court of the Munsif on 13th September 1923 and they obtained possession on that decree. The first appellate Court on appeal dismissed the applicants' suit on 8th May 1924 and the applicants were dispossessed. The applicants' appeal in the High Court was allowed and a decree for possession was granted on 8th August 1928. The successful plaintiffs instituted a suit on 23rd December 1929 against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 70 as mesne profits on the allegation that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs of the said land after the dismissal of their suit by the first appellate Court and that the plaintiffs had remained out of possession until the 18th August 1928. Damages-were claimed for two y...
Amanul Haq and ors. Vs. Girdhar Gopal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All886; 150Ind.Cas.775
Bajpai, J.1. This is headed as a Criminal Revision but I think, more appropriately, it should have bean filed as a civil revision inasmuch as the order sought to be revised was passed by the District Judge and not by the Sessions Judge, Although here again there is a slight error inasmuch as Mr. Hunter has described himself as Sessions Judge and not an District Judge; but it is the case of both parties that the order sought to be revised and passed by Mr. Hunter in his capacity of a District Judge and not in his capacity of a Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite party however does not object to the nature of the proceedings before me, and I propose to dispose of the present application as a civil revision inasmuch as the point that has been taken by the applicant is that the Court below has no jurisdiction to pass the present order. The facts are that one Girdhar Gopal filed a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class. In c...
Baji Lal and ors. Vs. Tota Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All932; 150Ind.Cas.876
1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether a second appeal lay to the District Judge under Section 243, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The suit was filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class, for arrears of rent, upon the allegation that the plaintiff was the zamindar and the defendant, Baji Lal, was his tenant and that the latter had failed to pay the rent due for the period in suit. The defence was a denial of the defendant's liability to pay rent to the plaintiff and a plea that the defendant had paid the rent in good faith to one Ajit Singh who was the lambardar of the mahal. In accordance with Section 270, Tenancy Act, the trial Court impleaded Ajit Singh as a defendant in the suit and came to a finding that Baji Lal had paid the rent in question to Ajit Singh in good faith and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff then appealed to the Collector who reversed the decision of the trial Court and held that although Baji Lal had paid the rent to Ajit Si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »