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.
Baloo and anr. Vs. Nanu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All640
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises from a suit for recovery of possession of a plot of land and for demolition of certain constructions admittedly made by the defendants thereon. The plaintiffs' case was that the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiffs' land in 1927 and that they had no right to build on it. The defence was that the land was the property of the defendants and that the constructions complained of by the plaintiffs had been made 30 years before the suit. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants, eight in number, preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court. The appellant has filed an affidavit which shows that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court one of the defendants, namely, Amar Singh, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. Apparently this fact was not brought to the notice of the lower Court when the appeal was heard. The learned Judge accepted the ap...
In Re: an Advocate
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.1043
Thom, J.1. On January 24, 1934, notice was ordered by this Court to go to Mr. O. 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. Banerji, Dr. N.C. Vaish and Mr. Murli 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 January 24, 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 November 23, 1932. After his death an application for letters of administration with a copy of the will of the deceased, dated November 20, 1932, was made on May 2, 1933, in the High Court by Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a son of the dece...
Badloo and anr. Vs. Nanu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.602
Niamat-Ullah, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises from a suit for recovery of possession of a plot of land and for demolition of certain constructions admittedly made by the defendants thereon. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants had encroached upon the plaintiffs' land in 1927 and that they had no right to built on it. The defence was that the land was the property of the defendants and that the constructions complained of by the plaintiffs had been made 30 years before the suit. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the trial Court. The defendants, eight in number, preferred an appeal to the lower Appellate Court. The appellant has filed an affidavit which shows that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court one of the defendants namely, Amar Singh, died and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. Apparently this fact was not brought to the notice of the lower Court when the appeal was heard. The learned Judge accepted the app...
Ramji Lal and ors. Vs. Roshan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All692; 155Ind.Cas.596
1. A Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a, member, remitted the following issue to the lower Court for finding:what amount, if any, is due to the defendant-mortgagee from the mortgagors on the basis of the mortgage deeds dated 21st July 1880 and 27th July 1882.2. For the detailed circumstances in which it was found necessary to have a finding on the above issue the remand order should be seen. For the purposes of our decision on the issue remitted to the lower Court whose finding is before us, it is necessary to state the facts very briefly. The defendant-respondents were mortgagees of a 12- biswansi share in a certain village under the deeds, one of 21st July 1880, and the other of 27th July 1882. The plaintiffs took a mortgage of the same share together with another share under a deed of a subsequent date. The defendant obtained a decree for sale on foot of their mortgages in 1886, and purchased the share themselves in execution of their decree. They obtained possession of t...
Muhammad Qulikhan Vs. Mt. Mubarak Fatima
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All758
Niamatullah, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for contribution. The parties to this case are comutawallis under a deed of endowment which reserves certain benefits in favour of certain persons hereinafter called the beneficiaries. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The beneficiaries instituted a suit against the parties to this case for recovery of what was receivable by them under the deed of endowment in respect of the years 1332-1334 Fasli. The present plaintiff was arrayed as defendant 1 and the present defendant was defendant 2. The latter did not enter appearance, and the proceedings were ex parte against her. Defendant 1 (the present plaintiff) contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that half the property is entered in Mubarak Fatima's (the present defenfendant's) name, who had received from defendant 1 all her profits up to 1334 Fasli. One of the issues framed by the Court in that case was ...
Muhammad Quli Khan Vs. Musammat Mubarak Fatima
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-18-1935
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.716
Niamat-Ullah, J.1. The suit which has given rife to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff appellant for contribution. The parties to thus case are co-mutawallis under a deed of endowment which reserves certain benefits in favour of certain persons hereinafter called the beneficiaries. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The beneficiaries instituted a suit against the parties to this case for recovery of what was receivable by them under the deed of endowment in respect of the years 1332-1334 Fasli. The present plaintiff was arrayed as the first defendant and the present defendant was the 2nd defendant. The latter did not enter appearance, and the proceedings were ex parte against her. The 1st defendant (the present plaintiff) contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that half the property is entered in Mubarak Fatima's (the present defendant's) name, who had received from defendant No. 1 all her profits up to 1334 Fasli. One of the issues framed by the ...
Siraj UddIn Vs. Syed Haidar HussaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All737
ORDERBajpai, J.1. The facts of this case are that a conditional order of attachment before judgment was passed in the suit of Hyder Husain v. Latafat Husain on 3rd September 1932 and Pandit Rama Shanker Tewari, a vakil of the Court, was directed to attach the moveable goods in the shop of Latafat Husain. He proceeded to the spot, attached the goods and appointed one Sirajuddin as a supurdar. From the report of the Commissioner, his evidence taken in the present, proceedings and the document of supurdnama executed by Sirajuddin, it is clear that the latter was entrusted with the custody of the goods in the shop of Latafat Husain and accepted the liability of producing themwhen required by the Court. Later on he seems to have represented to the Court that he did not like to remain the custodian because Latafat Husain was removing the goods. The Court instituted an enquiry into the complaint made by Sirajuddin. Finally the Court ordered on 10th February 1934 that the supurdar should produ...
Tika Ram Joshi Vs. Ram Lal Sah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All754; 155Ind.Cas.1056
Harries, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs claimed an injunction to compel the defendant to close up certain apertures which he had opened in a side wall of his premises overlooking a house owned and occupied by them and to restrain him from opening any such apertures in the future. The learned Munsif who tried the case decreed the claim, but on appeal the decree was modified. The learned District Judge refused to grant any injunction but ordered that certain windows should be rendered in such a condition as to make it impossible for anyone in the defendant's premises to see through them into the plaintiffs' premises. Against this decision the defendant has appealed to this Court contending that the opening of the apertures in question does not amount to an infringement of the plaintiffs' rights. The plaintiffs being also dissatisfied with this decision have filed a cross-objection claiming that the decree of the learned Munsif should be restored.2. The facts of the case are simple and ...
Tirloki Prasad Vs. Kunj Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All448; 157Ind.Cas.986
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal from an order passed in first appeal by the learned District Judge of Meeruf in the course of insolvency proceedings. The appellant Tirloki Prasad and his brother ,Sri Ram, were adjudicated in solvents. The receiver seized a house No. 41 which is situated in the city of Meerut. The appellant Tirloki Prasad made an application that he was an agriculturist, that the house No. 41 was his residential house and that it was not subject to attachment under the provisions of Clause (c). Section 60, Civil P.C., and Sub-section (5), Section 28, Provincial Insolvency Act. The Court of first instance found that the appellant was not, in the true sense of the term, an agriculturist. and that Section 60, Civil P.C., Clause (c). did not apply to him. In appeal the learned District Judge found that the appellant was in a sense, an agriculturist; but he went on to say that, the house was subject to attachment, because it was not appurtenant to a holding and was not ...
Jhakri Kewat Vs. Ram Naresh Sahi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All514
ORDERKendall, J.1. This case has been argued before me by Mr. C.B. Agarwala as one under Section 107, Government of India Act. The circumstances may be set forth briefly here. A suit for arrears of rent was brought by a ziladar against the present applicant, and was decreed on 20th September 1930. There was no appeal, and the decree-holder, after unsuccessfully attempting to realise the amount of his decree for arrears of rent, finally made an application for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 79, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, and after some time had been allowed to the judgment-debtor, an order of ejectment was passed under Section 18 of the Act on 15th August 1933. An appeal was made against this order, but on the office of the appellate Court-reporting that the court-fee was deficient, it was dismissed after time had been given to the appellant to make up the deficiency. It was 'dismissed on 2nd October 1933. The applicant then made an application for review in the appellate Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »