Allahabad Court July 1934 Judgments
State of Indore Vs. Visheshwar Bhattacharya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1054
1. In these two appeals the plaintiff-appellant is the State of Indore, whose title to the property in dispute has been challenged in First Appeal No. 256 of 1927; but as we have maintained it in our decision in that appeal, the objection of the defendant respondent, on this ground fails. The plaintiff therefore must be held to be the owner of the house concerned in these two suits, namely, the house bearing Municipal No. 15, in mohalla Brahmapuri Ahilya Bai, Benares City, which adjoins house No. 17-12 which is the property owned by the defendant-respondent in First Appeal No. 319 of 1927, and house No. 11, which is owned by the defendant-respondent in First Appeal No 587 of 1927. The sole question for decision in the appeal before us is one that, if common to both these appeals. It appears that the defendants built a three storeyed verandah projecting over the land of the plaintiff and further opened some windows, which were said to invade the privacy of the plaintiff's house. The pla...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Baran Vs. Bodh Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1051
Kendall, J.1. The circumstances out of which this application has arisen are fully given in the order of the learned Munsif of Deoband. One of four defendants had made appearance in the suit on 18th April 1933 and the suit as against him was dismissed; but an ex parts decree was given against the other three defendants. One of them applied under Order 9, Rule 13 to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the Court, after fully discussing the merits of the case with the object of showing that the decree sought by the plaintiff against the four defendants was one and indivisible, set aside the whole decree. It is urged in support of the present application that the Court had no jurisdiction under Order 9, Rule 13 to re-open a decree that had been pronounced in favour of the applicant after contest.2. I have been referred to three cases, in which a somewhat similar matter has come before three other High Courts, namely, Ghonnu Mal v. Sant Das (1913) 18 I.C. 327, Monoku v. Sita Ram (1894) ...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Naqi Vs. Sheikh Baqridu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1065; 152Ind.Cas.31
Kendall, J.1. The facts out of which this application has arisen are briefly as allows : There was a civil suit for ejectment in the Court of the Munsif, and a post card was filed on behalf of the defendant, of which according to the plaintiff, the date had been altered. The civil suit was settled by agreement, but on the application of the plaintiff, the Munsif made an inquiry into the question whether the defendant should be prosecuted under Sections 193, 465 and 4.71, Penal Code. He came to the conclusion that there ought to be a prosecution and he sent a complaint to the District Magistrate to tibia effect. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge found that the materials on the record did not justify the hope that the prosecution would end in the conviction of the defendant in the civil suit, and set aside the order of the trial Court, I am asked to interfere with this order under Section 115, Civil P.C. on the ground that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to set as...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Bihari Lal Vs. Lalta Prasad and Sons and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All943; 153Ind.Cas.661
Kendall, J.1. This application has given rise to a somewhat difficult question of jurisdiction. The circumstances are that the plaintiff-applicant had obtained an ex parte decree in a Small Cause Court. That Court was subsequently abolished, and an application to set aside the ex parte decree was made to the Munsif; but the judgment-debtor did not deposit the amount of the decree or give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree, as he was required to do by the first proviso to Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887. The learned Munsif held that the provisions of Section 35 of the Act empowered him to proceed if the matter were one governed by the procedure for the regular Courts, and not by the special procedure laid down in the Small Cause Courts Act, and he therefore allowed the application to set aside the ex parte decree. Section 17, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act para. 1, is to the following effect:The procedure prescribed in th...
Tag this Judgment!Parshotam Saran Vs. NaraIn Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1047; 152Ind.Cas.36
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, upholding that of the Munsif, dismissing the appellant's application for execution of a decree as barred by limitation. The material dates are noted below. A final decree for sale of mortgaged property was passed on 17th July 1926. An application for execution of that decree was made in 1927. A proclamation for sale was issued, and the record was sent to the Collector for sale of the property, which is revenue paying property. On the date fixed for sale no bidders were present. The Collector returned the file to the Civil Court, intimating that the property could not be sold. The application for execution was dismissed for want of prosecution. An application was made on 21st December 1927, praying that the application previously dismissed for want of prosecution be restored. This application was granted and the previous application was restored. It was however dismisse...
Tag this Judgment!Jangli Das Vs. B. Lal Behari and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1056; 152Ind.Cas.96
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by one Jangli Das, decree-holder. The circumstances, in which it has arisen, are briefly as follows : Baqaullah execuated a deed of usufructuary mortgage on 20th January 1927, in favour of the respondent Lal Behari Lal in respect of a house and certain lands which were in the occupation of the decree-holder jangli Das. Subsequently, on 1st February 1928, Baqaullah executed a promissory note in favour of Jangli Das in consideration of Rs. 1,200. Later on, Baqaullah executed a sale-deed in respect of the property covered by the mortgage, already mentioned, in favour of the mortgagee Lal Behari Lal for a certain sum, out of which Ra. 1,200 was left for payment to Jangli Das in satisfaction of the promissory note already referred to. Lal Behari Lal did not however pay off Jangli who instituted Suit No. 395 of 1930, for recovery of what was due to him under the promissory note. He impleaded his debtor Baqaullah and Lal Behari Lal who had rendered himself ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Chandra and anr. Vs. Jaith Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All990
Niamatullah, J.1. The suit, which has given-rise to this appeal, was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of right and for 'absolute possession' of the property in dispute on the allegation that the plaintiff was the real mortgagee under a deed, dated 12th June 1872, which stood ostensibly in the name of Ganga Bishan, and that the purchase of it by the latter in 1875 in enforcement of that mortgage was on behalf of the plaintiff, who has ever since been in adverse possession thereof. The cause of action, on which the plaintiff's suit is founded, is refusal by the defendant, the son of Ganga Bishan, to pay profits to the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal. The following pedigree will explain the position of the parties and other persons whose names occur in the narrative of the case:Radha Kishan|____________________________| | |Sahib Ram Ganesh Ram Ganga Bishan| | || ___________________...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shankar Vs. Ramsewak and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1045
1. This is an appeal by the defendant, Gauri Shankar arising out of a suit brought for specific performance against him by the plaintiff. On 18th July 1932, the vendor Shambhu Prasad entered into a contract for the sale of a shop to the plaintiff, Ram Sewak for Rs. 2,500. On 22nd July 1932, he executed a sale-deed of the same shop in favour of the appellant, Guari Shankar ostensibly for a sum of Rs. 3,300. It was recited in the sale-deed that Rs. 300 out of the sale consideration were paid at the house of the vendor and the balance of Rs. 3,000 would be paid at the time of the registration. Just when the document was presented for registration at the office and the Sub-Registrar was proceeding to make the endorsement of the presentation on the back of the instrument, Ram Sewak filed an application to the effect that he had a prior contract in his favour of which notice should be given to the vendor and the vendee. The Sub-Registrar announced the fact to them and then completed his endo...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Singh Vs. Jafar Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1066
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent brought by an assignee of the rent from the original landholder. At first the original landholder applied under Section 81, Agra Tenancy Act, to the Tahsildar for the issue of notice for payment of the arrears of rent and for the ejectment of the tenant in case of default. An objection was raised that she had transferred the arrears to Jafar Ali Khan. Jafar Ali Khan intervened and wanted to join in the application, but later on, better advice prevailed and he got the application dismissed without paying necessary court-fee as required by Sub-section (5). They then instituted a suit in the Civil Court for the recovery of the arrears of rent, but the defence taken by the tenant was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. On this plea being accepted the plaint was returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit which has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Amjad Ali Vs. Ghafoor Mohammad Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All76; 152Ind.Cas.25
Niamatullah, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the two plaintiff-respondents under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926), for ejectment of the defendant-appellant on the allegation that the latter is in possession of the lands in dispute without the consent of the plaintiff in each case. The land in possession of the defendant lies partly in the mahal of one of the plan tiffs and partly in that of the other. Hence each of the plaintiffs brought a separate suit for ejectment, as already stated.2. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' rights to maintain suits for ejectment, under the Tenancy Act and claimed to be himself the owner of the lands in dispute. A question of proprietary right having thus arisen, an issue was remitted by the Revenue Court to the Civil Court (in this case, the Munsif of Etah) under Section 121, Tenancy Act. The Civil Court upheld the defendants' claim to ownership of the lands in dispute, holding that he had been in adverse proprietary p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »