Allahabad Court October 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.
Kailash NaraIn Vs. Gopi Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1937All411
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for obtaining a declaration. The facts of the case may be stated as follows : Babu Kailash Narain, plaintiff, is the son of Babu Bankey Lal. He instituted a suit to obtain a declaration that decree No. 5 of 1928 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Etawah, Gopi Nath and Anr. v. Bankey Lal and Anr. passed on 27th February 1928 and obtained by the defendants cunningly, fraudulently and dishonestly against him ex parte was null and void, illegal, ineffectual and unenforceable. The plaintiff his plaint alleged that during his minority he had been living with his maternal uncles, that during that period his father Bankey Lal started an altogether new business in the name of Bankey Lal Kailash Narain at Etawah, that the entire business was carried on by Bankey Lal on his own responsibility and that the plaintiff had nothing to do with it. It was further alleged in the plaint that according to law the plaintiff's father had no right to...
Amba Prasad Maheshwari Vs. Jugal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All112; 159Ind.Cas.790
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. The attempt of the District Board of Saharanpur in the year 1929 to grant to the plaintiff a monopoly or exclusive right to run lorries on hire on certain roads in the District of Saharanpur has been productive of much contusion and has eventually culminated in the present litigation. On the one hand it has been argued that the Board has the right to grant exclusive permits to ply lorries on hire on the District Board road and prevent the owners of lorries who have not been given such permits from using the roads for such purpose, whereas on the other hand it has been contended that it is not within the competence of a Board to create monopolies of this description. For the decision of the civil revision before me it is not necessary to decide the point as, on the findings recorded by the Small Cause Court Judge, the question of law that has been argued does not arise, but as the question has been argued at some length and is of general importance, I consider it ...
Naipal Singh and ors. Vs. James R.R. Skinner and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All127; 159Ind.Cas.797
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent to recover arrears of revenue. The plaintiff is an assignee of Government revenue, and as such, he brought this suit. The suit was brought against the lambardar and other co-sharers. The lambardar was also a co-sharer. The other defendants contended that they were not liable and only the lambardar (Balwanta) who used to make collections was liable. The trial Court decreed the suit against the lambardar alone and dismissed the suit against the other co-sharers. On appeal by the plaintiff the learned District Judge reversed the decree of the lower Court and decreed the suit against all the co-sharers holding that:Each defendant shall be liable rateably to the extent of his share in the zamindari and no more to the plaintiff.2. The learned Judge made the contesting (respondents liable for the costs of the appellants. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appell...
Aulad HusaIn and ors. Vs. (Syed) Nasir HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All220; 159Ind.Cas.730
1. This is a second appeal by certain defendants against a decree of a learned Subordinate Judge passed in first appeal in a partition suit. The plaintiffs who are members of the same family as the defendants are descended from a common ancestor Syed Aulad Husain. The plaintiffs were absent from the village in question for many years being in service in Hyderabad. They claimed that they had a right to the partition of these two houses because they were ancestral houses. The defence was that house No. 2 was divided into two portions and that this house as it stood now was not an ancestral house. The lower appellate Court has come to certain findings of fact on this point and it has come to the finding of fact that house No. 2 has been recently re-built in the southern portion by certain defendants but that it has not been re-built in the northern portion by the defendants. The claim that is put before us in second appeal is that the finding of the lower appellate Court is wrong on this ...
Kunwar Lallajee Vs. Ram Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All77; 160Ind.Cas.623
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent to recover money on foot of a hypothecation bond by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage-deed had been executed in his favour by Shiam Prasad and by Mahabir Prasad on his behalf and on behalf of his two minor brothers Suraj Prasad and Sarju Prasad. Defendant 7 who is a subsequent transferee of the mortgaged property contended that Ganga Prasad, one of the brothers of the mortgagors, did not join in the execution of the mortgage and therefore his l/5th share in the mortgaged property was not liable for sale under the mortgage-deed. Bisheshar Dial who was the father of the mortgagors died leaving five sons, the four mortgagors and one Ganga Prasad. Before the mortgage Ganga Prasad was adopted by Kanhaiya Lal. The trial Court allowed the objection of defendant 7 and gave a decree for the sale of only 4/5th share. On appeal the learned District Judge, Mainpuri, rev...
Wali Mohammad and ors. Vs. Higan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All80
Bajpai, J.1. The facts of this case might be briefly stated. One Lala Higan Lal a creditor applied for the adjudication of Wazir Ali as an insolvent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sahayanpur who had insolvency jurisdiction. The application of the creditor was dismissed. He filed an appeal in the Court of the District, Judge and during the pendency of the appeal Wazir Ali died. An application was made by the creditor for bringing the heirs of Wazir Ali on the record and the learned District Judge observed that Section 17, Provincial Insolvency Act, applied and that the appeal would not abate. He directed that the case would proceed against the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. A second appeal has been preferred against this order by the legal representatives of Wazir Ali. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent that no second appeal lies and when it was pointed out that the High Court has very extensive powers in revision it was submi...
Kallu Mal Vs. L. Ganeshi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All119; 160Ind.Cas.1098
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit brought for the ejectment of the defendant who has purchased a house partly pucca and partly kuchcha from a previous owner of the house in the village Chulhauli. The plaintiff is a zamindair of this village and the defendant is a resident of the same village but not a zamindar. The main defence set up by the contesting defendant was that there was a custom in this village according to which the owners of houses therein had a right to transfer them and the zamindars had no right to object to such transfer. A considerable volume of oral and documentary evidence-was produced in this case. The learned Munsif on a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the custom was fully established. But on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a contrary conclusion and has held that the instances are not sufficient to make out a custom. The question in appeal is whether the view taken by the lower app...
Gajram Singh and ors. Vs. Lala Kalyan Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1937All1; 166Ind.Cas.423
1. The question referred to this Pull Bench for decision consists of two parts : (a) Where there has been a payment by a debtor to a creditor and no appropriation has been proved either by the debtor QJC the creditor, is it open to the creditor to appropriate the amount or any part of it towards the payment of any debt and at any time even during the pendency of the litigation concerning the payment? (b) Whether it is open to a mortgagee of a joint family property, under a mortgage deed executed by the manager of the joint family when a portion of the mortgage debt was not raised for legal necessity, to appropriate during the pendency of the suit payments made by the mortgagor towards the discharge of such portion of the debt as was not raised for legal necessity, when no appropriation was made either by the mortgagor or the mortgagee till the date of the suit?2. In this case a mortgage deed had been executed by two brothers, Jagdish Singh and Pitam Singh, in favour of Radha Kishan, on...
(Saiyed) Alam Ali Vs. Beni Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All33; 160Ind.Cas.541
ORDER1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 2nd September 1919. The claim was mainly contested by the defendant-appellant who held a mortgage of 22nd April 1928, but claimed priority on account of the payment of two mortgage decrees which had been obtained before his mortgage on the basis of two earlier mortgages of 18th September 1909 and 20th July 1918. These mortgages were simple mortgages and the decrees were decrees for sale to which the present plaintiff as a, subsequent mortgagee had been impleaded. The mortgagor, in executing the third mortgage in favour of the defendant, had left Rs. 4,000 in the hands of the mortgagee for discharging one of the decrees and took Rs. 5,237 himself in order to pay off the other decrees, which he did. The defendant accordingly claimed that he should be given priority over the second mortgagee on account of the discharge-of the earlier mortgages of 1909 and 1918. The learned Subordinate...
Syed Zahur UddIn Ahmad Vs. Chimman Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All66; 160Ind.Cas.943
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a case brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent on behalf of the Hindu public of Mohallah Shahamatganj, Bareilly, with the permission of the Court for a declaration that the land in suit with the well in it was dedicated to the public in which the plaintiff and the Hindu public as a whole have got a customary right of easement of holding fairs, keeping water stalls and pitch shamianas for the comfort and benefit of the public and drawing water from the well, and for a mandatory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the rights of the public to draw water from the well and to worship the peepal tree and restraining the defendant from making any constructions on the land. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 10 for damages for two paker trees alleged to have been cut away by the defendant. The plaintiff's case was that about 80 or 90 years ago one Chhatoo Bhagat constructed the well in dispute which is known ...