Allahabad Court January 1935 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.
Hurmat Singh Vs. Ganga NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All507; 157Ind.Cas.1010
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an execution of decree appeal from the order of the learned, Additional District Judge, Cawnpore, disallowing the appellant's objection to attachment of certain property belonging to a joint family consisting of the appellant and his father. The respondents obtained a mortgage from the appellant's father for a certain sum of money charged on the joint family property. Subsequently he instituted a suit for enforcement of that mortgage, in plea ding the father. The son was made a party on his own application and put the mortgagee to proof of legal necessity for the mortgage money. Part of the sum advanced under the deed was found to have been taken for necessary purposes. For such part a decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed. As regards the remaining part of the consideration of the mortgage, the Court held that the mortgage was invalid. A simple money decree was however passed for that amount against the father personally. The decree-holder appli...
Emperor Vs. Bandhoo Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All563
Bajpai, J.1. Bandhu Ahir, Badal Dube and Magan Beldar were placed on their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur for offences under Sections 307, 325 and 333, Penal Code. They were acquitted of offences under Sections 307 and 333, Penal Code, but were convicted of an of fence tinder Section 325, Penal Code. The Local Government has filed an appeal against the acquittal of the three accused under Section 333, Penal Code, and is the appeal of the Local Government the accused are represented by Mr. Kalim Jafri; Badal Dube and Magan Beldar have appealed against their conviction under Section 325, Penal Code, and are represented by Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Misra. Bandhu has remained content with his conviction under Section 325, Penal Code. We have heard the learned Government Advocate in support of the Government appeal and Mr. Jafri in answer. We have also heard Mr. Misra who has taken us through the entire record in connection with, the appeal filed by Badal and Magan.2. The fa...
Sheo Dihal Dube and ors. Vs. Moti Lal Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All568; 157Ind.Cas.522
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against Moti Lal, defendant. The plaintiffs' case was that the land that was in occupation of the defendant was their sir. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs alone had no right to bring the suit. The other cosbarcrs were also implcaded as defendants. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the Collector who found in favour of the defendant and held that the plaintiffs were not the sole owners of the sir and that it belonged, to the plaintiffs as well as other defendants co-sharers and the plaintiffs had no right: to bring' the suit alone. An appeal was preferred to the learned District Judge who dismissed the appeal on the ground that, as there was no question of proprietary title, no second appeal lay. He also recorded a finding that the land in dispute belonged solely to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs alone 'had a right to bring ...
Bakhtawar Vs. Lila Pat
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All785; 158Ind.Cas.50
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal is without substance. The suit which has given rise to it was brought by the respondent for recovery of three years' rent on the basis of a 'Qabuliat' executed by the appellant, who had on the date of the 'Qabuliat' also executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land covered by the 'Qabuliat.' The transaction was not at all of an uncommon character.2. The mortgagor agreed to continue in possession as a 'thekadar' and to pay a certain rent to his own usufructuary mortgagee. The 'Qabuliat' was not registered. The argument put forward on behalf of the 'thekadar' is that, in the absence of a registered lease executed by the lessor, no relationship of lessor and lessee could come into existence. This contention may be right; but it is not enough to defeat the plaintiff's claim. It cannot be disputed that the parties fully intended to enter into a transaction of usufructuary mortgage. Symbolical possession, was deliver...
Gurucharan Prasad and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All964
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff a portion of whose suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff sued as the zamindar of a certain village in Jaunpur District, stating that the defendants were tenants and that in certain plots with which the defendants had no concern the defendants had planted a large number of Mahua and mango trees and bamboo clumps. The two plots in question Nos. 437/2/2 and 424/1 comprise about 9 1/2 acres. The plaint asked that the plaintiff might be put in possession of these plots by removal of the trees planted by the defendants. The defendants set up various pleas admitting that the trees existed on the land in dispute against the will of the plaintiff and claiming that the defendants were former zamindars and that the land in question was not sold when their zamindari was sold and that they had rights in the land in question and that the land constituted a grove. An issue was referred to the Revenue Court which found that the defendants were not...
Gurcharan Prasad and anr. Vs. Jai NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.521
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff, a portion of whose suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff sued as the zamindar of a certain village in Jaunpur District, stating that the defendants were tenants and that in certain plots with which the defendants had no concern, the defendants had planted a large number of Mahua and mango trees and bamboo clumps. The two plots in question Nos. 437/2/2 and 424/1 comprise about 9 1/2 acres. The plaint asked that the plaintiff might be put in possession of these plots by removal of the trees planted by the defendants. The defendants set up various pleas admitting that the trees existed on the land in dispute against the will of the plaintiff and claiming that the defendants were former zamindars and that the land in question was not sold when their zamindari was sold and that they had rights in the land in question and that the land constituted a grove. An issue was referred to the Revenue Court which found that the defendants were n...
Ganga Sahai Vs. Mt. Janki and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All497
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a certain sum of money which came into the appellant's possession in the following circumstances:The plaintiff was a simple mortgagee under a deed of 1909 and a usufructuary mortgagee under a subsequent deed of 1913. The property mortgaged under the two was the same. The defendant-appellant was a mortgagee in respect of part of that property under a deed of 1918. The defendant's mortgage was also simple. The defendant obtained a decree for sale on foot of his mortgage and had the property mortgaged to him sold and. purchased, at any rate part thereof himself. The prior mortgagee enforced his mortgage of 1909 and had the mortgaged property sold. As a matter of fact some property is said to have been exempted, but the question is not material for the purpose of this appeal. The mortgage of 1909 was satisfied in full, and a surplus was left in Court. In the meantime, the appellant whos...
Jafar Beg and anr. Vs. Ujagar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All501; 157Ind.Cas.30
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Etawah, in a mortgage suit far sale. A preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Subsequently he applied for a final decree when the appellants objected alleging that the mortgage money had been satisfied partly by payment in cash, for which a receipt was passed and partly by execution of an unregistered bond or promissory note in favour of the mortgagee decree-holder. The decision of the case rested on proof of the appellant's allegations, which were denied by the mortgagee. The appellants examined a few witnesses and a handwriting expert in support of their case. The mortgagee also produced a handwriting expert, besides some other evidence. After discussing the evidence at some length, the lower appellate Court recorded the following finding on that part of the case:All things considered I am of opinion that the receipt produced by the appellant does not appea...
In Re: Chargeability of Stamp Duty
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All558; 155Ind.Cas.1034
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Munsif of Ghaziabad under Order 46, Rule 1 of a question of law which arose before him when executing a decree. A simple money decree had been put in execution and certain movable property of the judgment-debtor was ordered to be attached. The amin went to the spot and attached the property and handed over the same to a supurddar who executed a document which is the subject-matter of consideration. On report to the Court, the Court approved of the arrangement made by amin.2. There is no question before us as to the legal liability of the supurddar to restore the goods placed in his custody. The only question is whether the document executed by him was chargeable with stamp duty. The terms of the document were that the supurddar acknowledged having received the attached property from the amin and agreed to produce the same whenever demanded by the Court of the amin and further agreed that in case of failure the Court would be at liberty to rea...
Mt. Mahginiya Vs. Sri Ram Chandraji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All571
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant against concurring decrees by two lower Courts. The plaintiff sued as a zamindar of a certain village and stated in the plaint that the defendant was an occupancy tenant of a plot of land No. 81, area 70 acres, in his zamindairi on which stand clumps of bamboos belonging to defendant and that out of the clumps of bamboos defendant 1 had sold 46 bamboos to defendant 2 for Rs. 23 and that there was a custom of realisation of zar chaharum, of the sale proceeds by the zamindar at the time of sale of groves or scattered trees, and accordingly the plaintiff claimed Rs. 5-12-0 and interest. The case was first brought in the Revenue Court and defendant 1, who is an old lady, admitted the claim but later she disputed it in the Revenue Court and the Revenue Court held that it had not got jurisdiction and the plaint was returned and has been presented' in the Court of the Munsif. The case has been opposed by the appellant on the ground that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »