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.
B.B. and C.i. Ry. Co. Vs. Dwarka Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All669
Bajpai, J.1. This is a second appeal by a Railway Company against the decree of the Courts below awarding damages to the plaintiff for loss sustained by him through fire. The origin of the fire was stated to be that certain sparks from an engine of the Railway Company fell on the grass growing: on the Railway bank and spreading on to the jungle of the plaintiff's adjoining land damaged some patel grass and trees. The plaintiff is the owner of village Bhoianpore Chirpura and a portion of its area is situated close to the Railway line which passes over a certain portion of the land of this village. There are waste and jungle lands belonging to the plaintiff in this village and various kinds of timber and fruit trees and patel grass grow on these lands. The plaintiff's case is that on 13th April 1930, a passenger train owned by the B.B. & C.I. Railway Company was running between Cawnpore and Farrukhabad, and certain sparks from the engine were responsible for the fire and the damage to th...
Nazir Singh and ors. Vs. Lakhu Ahir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All422; 157Ind.Cas.530
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a strip of land. The plaintiff-respondents claimed it to be within boundary of their plot No. 772/1 with 15 'mahuwa' trees standing thereon. They claimed to be occupancy tenants in respect of the aforesaid plot. The defendants, on the other hand, pleaded that the land in dispute was part of their No. 772/2. It appears that there was a boundary dispute before the Revenue Court, and aggrieved by the decision of that Court the plaintiff's instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal.2. No less than four commissioners were successively appointed by the trial Court as the report of every one of them was contested by the party which considered it to be unfavourable. The parties led other evidence also. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The defendants' appeal to the lower appellate Court was also dismissed. In the present second appeal the only question of law that has been raised in the...
Banwari Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All466; 157Ind.Cas.1044
Kendall, J.1. These three applications for revision have been referred to us because they raise an important question of law as to which the learned referring Judge was in some doubt. Applications for the revision of the orders passed by the lower Court had been already disposed of by him. They were applications made from jail, but although he had not had the advantage of hearing counsel on behalf of the applicant, he had considered the applications on the merits and had dismissed them. On fresh application being filed, through counsel the question was raised of whether he had jurisdiction to review his own orders, and he ordered notice to be issued, and after hearing counsel passed the order-under which the cases have been referred to us.2. Section 369. Criminal P.C., as it now stands, is as follows:Saveas otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force or in the case of a High Court established by Royal Charter, by the Letters Patent of such High Court...
Gayasi Ram and ors. Vs. ShahabuddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All493; 157Ind.Cas.897
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiffs who have lost their suits in both the lower Courts and before the learned Single Judge of this Court. On 3rd July 1912, Bhuja Ram, father of the plaintiff, Gayasi. sold a house to Nanhu, the father of Ramsaruip, defendant 3, for the sum of Rs. 150. In that sale-deed there was a clause providing that the vendee would not transfer the house by mortgage, gift or self to anyone excepting the vendor or his heirs; that if the house were sold by auction-sale the sale would be invalid; and that if the house were transferred in contravention of the said terms then the vendor or his heir would have a right to get back the house by paying Rs. 175. On 13th April 1928, Ramsarup, son of the vendee sold the house to defendant 2, Raja Ram, for Rs. 1,000. On 3rd April 1929, Raja Ram, sold the house to defendant 1, Shahabuddin, for Rs. 800. On 12th April 1929, the plaintiffs have brought the present suit against all the defendants claiming p...
Bhajjan Kewal Vs. Raghu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All544
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over certain groves. In the plaint it was stated that the property in dispute consists of three groves with trees in a village, which belong to the plaintiffs'; that the defendant's ancestors were allowed to plant three trees with the permission of the plaintiffs' ancestors, and on the strength of their claim to these three trees the defendants got their names entered in respect of the three groves as grove-holders; it was further alleged that there was a dispute between the parties a year before the suit and the defendants were ready to claim possession over the groves and assert their own right, and that the plaintiffs made an attempt in the Revenue Court for the rectification of the papers but that they ultimately withdrew the application and brought the present suit. The defendants put forward the case that they themselves...
Muhammad Mustafa Ali Khan Vs. Dist. Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All663; 155Ind.Cas.593
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction brought by the plaintiff who was the Secretary of the District Board, Bareilly, against the Board restraining the Board from enforcing their resolution of 8th March, 1933. A relief for a decimation that the plaintiff's dismissal was against law and unenforceable had been claimed, but was withdrawn.2. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal it is contended that the decree is wrong. A question has been raised as to whether a suit for an injunction by a Secretary of Local Board, filed in a Civil Court is at all maintainable and whether any relief for injunction can be granted in the face of the provisions of Section 21(b), Specific Relief Act. Under that section a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties or otherwise from its nature is such that the Court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms cannot be specificall...
Bhajjan Kewat Vs. Raghu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.690
1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over certain groves. In the plaint it was stated that the property in dispute consists of three groves with trees in a village, which belong to the plaintiffs; that the defendants' ancestors were allowed to plant three trees with the permision of the plaintiffs' ancestors, and on the strength of their claim to these trees, the defendants got their names entered in respect of the three groves as grove-holders; it was further alleged that there was a dispute between the parties a year before the suit and the defendants were ready to claim possession over the groves and assert their own right, and that the plaintiffs made an attempt in the Revenue Court for the rectification of the papers but that they ultimately withdrew the application and brought the present suit. The defendants put forward the case that they themselves were the grove-holder...
Ghana Nand Vs. Gobardhan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All404; 158Ind.Cas.100
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court dismissing the whole claim. The trial Court decreed the claim in part and dismissed the rest of the claim. The defendants filed an appeal to the lower appellate Court and the plaintiffs filed a cross-objection to that appeal. The result was that the plaintiffs' cross-objection was allowed and the claim was decreed to a larger extent while the defendants' appeal was only dismissed. The plaintiffs were not satisfied with their partial success and came up to the High Court in second appeal. The defendants, instead of filing any separate appeal, filed a cross-objection to the plaintiffs' appeal. The learned Judge held that the defendants' cross-objection was well founded and dismissed the whole suit.2. In the Letters Patent appeal it is contended before us on behalf of the plaintiffs that the learned Judge of this Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the whole claim. It is urged that it was the duty of the ...
In Re: an Advocate Cawnpore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All425
Thom, J.1. On 24th January 1934, notice was ordered by this Court to go to Mr. C to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct.2. For some reasons or other notice did not go to Mr. C. but the matter of the conduct was referred for enquiry to the Bar Council. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointed a Committee consisting of Mr. P.L. Benerji, Dr. N.C. Vaish and Mr. Mudi Manohar, to enquire into Mr. C's conduct. Mr. C's conduct in connection with a certain case had been adversely commented on by the learned Judge who directed that notice should go> to him on 24th January 1934.3. The facts may be briefly stated. They are fully set out in the report of the Bar Council Committee. Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a citizen of Cawnpore died upon 23rd November 1932. After his death an application for letters of administration with a copy of the will of the deceased, dated 20th November 1932, was made on 2nd May 1933, in the High Court by Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a son of the ...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All460
1. This is a defendant's second appeal and arises from a suit for profits, under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. The parties are mortgagees in possession under a deed of 30th July 1923, executed by Fateh Singh and others. Both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiffs' claim. In second appeal before us it was contended that the suit is not one cognizable by a Revenue Court, as the parties, who are admittedly usufructuary mortgagees are not co-sharers within the meaning of Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act.2. It appears that the parties to this suit had obtained a decree for Rupees 40,000 against the mortgagors Fateh Singh and others. The latter executed the mortgage-deed already referred to for Rs. 16,000 part of the decretal amount in respect of village Sowara, for which the profits are claimed. The deed expressly states that the plaintiffs are to be regarded as mortgagees in possession to the extent of half and the defendants are to be regarded as mortgagees in possession to the extent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »