Allahabad Court August 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.
Daljit Vs. Kacheru and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All83; 152Ind.Cas.192
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act.2. The plaintiff alleged that under a registered deed of 14th June 1927, an arrangement had been arrived at between him and the defendant under which certain plots were divided between them. The plaintiff's case was that by virtue of this agreement he became the owner of the plots in suit, and the defendant was holding them without his consent and was in possession as a trespasser. The defendant resisted the claim. He pleaded that as after the execution of the aforesaid deed there had been no partition of plots through the Revenue Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The suit was thrown out by the learned Assistant Collector who tried it. Against his decree there was an appeal to the District Judge of Agra who came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree and he accordingly decreed the appeal.3. T...
Bhairon Awasti Vs. Lalta Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All954
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Benares on the Small Cause Court side under the Garnishea Rules of the Civil Procedure Code, directing the attachment of a sum of Rs. 200 in the hands of a mortgagee. A deed of possessery mortgage had been executed by the judgment-debtor in favour of the mortgagee, who is the present applicant, for a nominal consideration of Sections 2,000, of which Es.200 were left with the mortgagee for payment to the decree-holder. The mortgagee did not make the payment, and the decree-holder has now proceeded against him under Rule 131,0.21 and the Court has directed the execution be proceed. The mortgagee's objection is made on the ground that the money cannot be attached under the Garnishee orders because it is not eithera debt due to the judgment-debtor (other than a debt secured by a mortgage) or a charge or a negotiable instrument or a debt recoverable only in a revenue Court or moveable proper...
Muhammad Ekram Khan and anr. Vs. Mirza Muhammad Bakar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All106; 152Ind.Cas.817
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by four plaintiffs jointly for an injunction restraining defendant 1 from recording his vote at a Municipal election and for a declaration that defendants 2 and 4 be ordered to have the votes already recorded declared invalid. The claim was decreed in favour of all the plaintiffs and that decree was upheld on appeal by the District Judge. While a second appeal was pending in this Court at least one of the plaintiffs-respondents, if not two, died and no steps were taken to bring any legal representatives on the record. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that the appeal having abated against one or two of the plaintiff-respondents who had got a joint decree, it has become infructuous and must abate in toto or, at any rate, be dismissed. We are unable to accept this contention. Either the suit brought was one brought in a representative capacity or it was brought in the exercise of the rights of the i...
Jassa Vs. Dhani Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All950; 153Ind.Cas.607
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Farrukhabad. The plaintiff applicant sued on the basis of a simple money bond for Rs. 100 the principle sum being repayable after three years with interest at the rate of 2 per cent, per menaam. The money was said to be borrowed to liquidate decrees for arrears of rent which were in existence against the executants of the bond, namely, Mt. Dulari and Dhani Earn. Mt. Dulari having died, the plaintiff nominated her legal representative to take her place, but the trial Court found that the nominee wag not the legal representative and counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, although he disputss this decision, informs me that if he succeeds on the merits be is willing to accept a decree against Dhani Earn only as he was one of the executants of the bond. The Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the transaction embodied in the been is part of the same transaction as that embodied ...
Sukhdeo Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All978; 153Ind.Cas.403
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The petitioner was a witness in the Court of Rai Kishanji Saheb, Special Magistrate of Benares, and the complaint of the petitioner is that while he was in the witness box the aforesaid Magistrate used insulting language towards the witness. The words alleged to be used are 'Haramjade Badmash Baiman.' The petitioner therefore filed a complaint in the Court of the City Magistrate of Benares against Rai Kishanji Saheb under Section 504, Penal Code. The City Magistrate was of the opinion that the complaint should not be entertained without the sanction of the Government. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the opinion that under Section 197, Criminal P.C., no complaint against the Magistrate could be entertained without the previous sanction of the Local Government. On a question of fact it was admitted by learned Counsel for the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge that the act of the Magistrate complained took place while he was acting as a Magistrate.2. It i...
Mt. Dhapo and anr. Vs. Ram Chandra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1019
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of a learned Judge of this Court under which a suit instituted by the respondents against the appellants was decreed. Reoti and Khawani who is a minor, are brothers and are joint in estate. They owned one-half share in a house. Mt. Dhapo owns the other half. Reoti acting for himself and for his minor brother Khawani entered into a contract with. Ram Chandra Lal, Munshi Lal and Ranjit Lal, plaintiffs, under which he contracted to sell to them the aforesaid half share in the house for a sum of Rs. 950, and he was paid Rs. 50 as earnest money. He however did not abide by this agreement and later on sold the above mentioned property to one Bulaki Dass for a sum of Rs. 850. The plaintiffs filed a suit for the specific performance of the contract for sale made by Reoti. Bulaki Dass the purchaser was also impleaded as a defendant in that suit. The suit was decreed. It was ordered that Reoti and Khawani should obtain par...
Satyawan Acharya Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1031; 153Ind.Cas.411
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The applicant, Satyawan Acharya, was the manager of a press situate in Colonelgunj, Allahabad. On 28th January 1933, the officer in charge of police station Colonelgunj, visited the place and found a certain document in the course of printing, in the sense that the matter had been composed and was put in galleys. The press had not under Section 15, Press Emergency Powers Act, 23 of 1931, obtained the sanction of the Magistrate for publishing a news sheet.2. The applicant was therefore prosecuted under Section 18 of the same Act, the charge against him being that he was abetting the making of a news sheet. News sheet has been defined in Section 2, Clause 6 as meaning any document other than a news paper containing public news or comments or public news or any matter described in Sub-section 1, Section 4. There is no controversy before me that the intended document was a news sheet within the meaning of Section 2, Clouse 6, but what has been strenuously argued is that t...
Suraj Kumar Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All67; 152Ind.Cas.541
1. The contest in this appeal is between two rival claimants to mortgagee rights under a deed dated 12th December 1913, executed by Chhadammi Lal, father of defendant 1, in favour of Sheo Adhar for a sum of Rs. 3,000. The position of the contending parties will be presently explained. Two suits were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cawnpore, one by the present appellant, Suraj Kumar for enforcement of the aforesaid mortgage, and the other by the respondent, Mt. Chandra Kala, for the same purpose. The two suits were tried together. In the result a decree was passed in the suit brought by the respondent, Mt. Chandra Kala. The present appellant's suit was dismissed. The mortgagor has acquiesced in the decree passed against him. The present appeal was preferred by the appellant, Suraj Kumar and is directed solely against the respondent, Mt. Chandra Kala as regards her right to enforce the mortgage.2. The following pedigree will explain the position of the parties inter se:SAD...
Jahan Singh Vs. Dr. Hardat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All247; 152Ind.Cas.487
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the son of a Hindu mortgagor for a declaration that a mortgage-deed on the basis of which a decree had been obtained by the mortgagee and the mortgaged property had been sold was not binding on the family because there was no legal necessity for the transaction. The decree was obtained on 15th September 1927, and the property was sold on 21st March 1930, and the sale was confirmed later on. But before possession of the property could be delivered to the auction-purchaser, who was the mortgagee decree-holder himself, the present suit was instituted. It was before the filing of the written statement that possession also was formally taken by the auction-purchaser.2. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim, The trial Court found on the issue relating to legal necessity that the transaction was for legal necessity. The lower appellate Court however has not gone into this question, but has thrown out the suit on the simple ground that the son had...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›