Allahabad Court September 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.
Kundan Lal Vs. Bhagwati Saran and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1934All1043; 153Ind.Cas.348
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Officiating District Judge, Agra, in a matter under the Guardians and Wards Act. Mt. Shyam Dei was appointed guardian of the property of her minor son, Hari Bhankar, who owned certain landed property. She executed a lease in favour of Kundan Lal and another in respect of that property at an annual rent of Rs. 895. The term of the lease was seven years. It was executed on 7th February 1932. A few months afterwards, one Bhoj Raj, who is alleged to be on bad terms with Kundan Lal, made an application to the District Judge intimating that the opposite party, Bhagwati Saran, was willing to pay for the same land an annual rent of Rs. 950-3-8 for a term of five years. The application also drew the attention of the District Judge to the fact; that the lease in favour of the applicant, Kundan Lal was given without the permission of the District Judge, required by Section 31, Guardians and Wards Act. The Dis...
Mt. Sheoraji Vs. Ram Sawari Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All43; 152Ind.Cas.387
1. The litigation that has culminated in the present appeal owes its origin to a deed of gift dated 14th August 1916, executed by one Kalap Nath in favour of his wife, Mt. Sampata, and has been occasioned by the uncertainty attending construction of deeds, of transfer executed in favour of Hindu women and the difficulty in deciding whether an absolute estate or a limited estate peculiar to Hindu females was intended to be transferred. The deed of gift of 1916 is couched in plain and simple language and is free from legal technicalities. It begins by reciting that Kalap Nath is the owner of the properties transferred by the deed and that he has no male issue and has become old. The deed then goes on to say that Kalap Nath was very pleased with Sampata and 'made a gift of the shares and houses' with all its inherent and adventitious rights in her favour and put her in possession thereof and that:She should enter into possession of the gifted property and enjoy the same, pay the Governmen...
Satnam Singh Vs. Bawan Bhagwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All198; 157Ind.Cas.540
Kendall, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the 'gaddinashin owner' of the property named in the plaint and the mahanth of Chaitan Math, a Sikh Math, in the city of Benares. The late mahanth, Ratan Singh, died on 23rd June 1928 leaving the defendant-appellant, Satnam Singh, in possession of the math property, after nominating him as his successor and executing a will in his favour. The plaintiff, who is now called Bawan Bhagwan Singh, is by birth a Brahmin, whose Hindu name was Murli, and is the son of a man originally named Mahadeo, who acted as cook of the late mahant for several years. Both father and son were converted, to Sikhism and renamed Hardeo Singh and Bawan Bhagwan Singh, and both, according to the evidence for the plaintiff, were initiated as chelas of the late mahant; and subsequently on 13th April 1928, Bhagwan Singh was installed as mahant under the guardianship of his father, but was afterwards turned out in favour...
Meharban Singh Vs. Bhola Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All35; 152Ind.Cas.496
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, recommending that an order passed by a Magistrate of First Class, in that District directing that one Bhola Singh under the provisions of Section 145, Criminal P.C., be put in possession of the plot in question, be set aside.2. Bhola Singh made an application under Section 145, Criminal P.C., on 15th March 1933, in which he alleged that Munshi Singh, Gurdatta Singh and Maharban Singh had forcibly dispossessed him of a plot of land by erecting a building over it and by cutting some trees, and that therefore there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace. It may be stated here that in his application Bhola Singh, alleged that he had been dispossessed seven or eight days before the date of his application. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate asked the police to make a report and it was not till 11th May 1933, that he issued a notice to the opposite party. The learned Magistrate who tried the case came t...
Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All362; 159Ind.Cas.155
1. Bharat Singh, Pattu Singh, Bishal Singh, Jhabbu Singh and Sarnam Singh were charged along with four others who were acquitted under Sections 302/149, 147, 324/149 and 148, Penal Code. Bharat Singh and Puttu Singh were sentenced to death under Section 302 read with 149, Penal Code. Bishal Singh, Jhabbu Singh and Sarnam Singh under the same section were sentenced to transportation for life. Under Section 147 all the appellants were sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324/149 to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Pattu Singh, Bharat Singh and Sarnam Singh were sentenced to two year's imprisonment under Section 148, Penal Code.2. The appellants were charged under the section already mentioned along with four others, namely, Chhotey Singh, Badshah Singh, Multan Singh and Dip Singh. The four however were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The charge against the accused was that on 21st May 1933, in the village Lilapur, District Farrukhabad, they formed an ...
Thomas Bear and Sons (India) Vs. Prayag Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All7
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling chewing tobacco contained in tins or packets bearing the trade-mark of an elephant which is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's trade-mark.2. The plaintiff is a firm styled 'Thomas Bear & Sons (India) Limited.' The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff company, or its predecessor in business, have been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling cigarettes and tobacco for many years and have been doing extensive business in India. All the goods sold by the company bear the design of an elephant which is the trade-mark of the company. In particular, the company has since the year 1922 been selling in India a brand of cigarettes called the 'elephant' cigarettes and a brand of tobacco known as 'Virginia Bird's eye' in tins and packets bearing the elephant trademark. The defendant has recently started the sale of chewing tobacco manufactured by him at Cawnpore and ...
Jhinno Singh and ors. Vs. Brahmdat Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All34; 152Ind.Cas.397
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh maintaining the award of an arbitrator in execution proceedings. The facts are given fully in the judgment of the trial Court. It is only necessary to say that the decree-holder was proceeding in execution against seven judgment-debtors, who were jointly and severally liable for a sum due to the decree-holder for mesne profits, and the question for decision was the amount of the sum for which they were liable. Of the seven judgment-debtors, five joined the decree-holder in application for a reference of this matter to arbitration, and the reference was accordingly ordered by the Court. At that stage all the seven judgment-debtors were jointly and severally liable for the amount of the decree, though at a subsequent stage two of them, Jagdeo Singh and Faujdar Singh, were exempted by the decree-holder. When the award was filed, an objection was lodged on the ground, among others, that a...
Jai Sri Singh and ors. Vs. Prabhu NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All127; 152Ind.Cas.508
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent. The plaintiff, who was the late ruler of the Benares State, brought the suit in his own name on the allegation that the rent of the holding had been enhanced under a Revenue Court's decree which was based on a compromise between the parties and that the defendants were liable to pay such enhanced rent. The defendants pleaded that inasmuch as there was no registered agreement to pay enhanced rent, they were not at all liable and the decree should be for the old rent only. The Court of first instance accepted the defendants' contention but on appeal the learned District Judge came to a contrary conclusion. He held that under Section 50(i)(b) of the new Tenancy Act the compromise, which was incorporated into the decree of the Court fulfilled the requirements of the law and was valid and binding. He further held that : inasmuch as under the same compromise occupancy rights had been conferred on the defendants they w...
Kunwar Indra Bikram Singh Vs. Gaya Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All140
Collister, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Shahjahanpur, remitting a certain issue to the trial Court under Order 41, Rule 25, Civil P.C. The question arises whether an appeal lies from such an order. Under Order 43, Rule 1(u), Civil P.C., an appeal lies from an order remanding a case, but the order before us is not an order of remand at all, but merely an order remitting an issue to the trial Court and the lower appellate Court has retained seisin of the case. Nor can it be said that it is an appealable order passed under Section 47 for it is not a question 'relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.' In our opinion no appeal lies, and the appeal is accordingly-dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C....
(Firm) Nanak Singh Mela Ram Vs. Girdhari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935All155a
ORDERKendall, J.1. At the time when this case was called for hearing the applicant's counsel was not present. But as he had already concluded his argument before me on the last date of hearing, the matter has to be disposed of on its merits.2. The application is one for the revision of an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad allowing an adjustment between the parties in execution proceedings. The decree under execution was a money decree pronounced on 16th December 1926 and payable by instalments, the first of which fell due on 15th March 1927. That instalment having failed, the decree-holder put his decree into execution. But on 25th August 1932 the judgment-debitor made an application to the Court to the effect that the matter had been adjusted between the parties by a compromise by which instalments were to be again allowed. Originally the decree had been payable by four six-monthly instalments, and under the settlement alleged to have been arrived at the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »