Allahabad Court November 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.
Parshottam Ram Vs. Sheo Mangal Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All151
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision against the decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, dismissing his suit. The plaintiff brought a suit No. 123 of 1930 against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in which he had got an award filed which was made in the partition proceedings between the plaintiff and the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendant 3. The award was insufficiently stamped, and So the plaintiff had to pay Us. 15 for the deficiency in the stamp duty and Rs. 150 for penalty. This amount was not included in the costs of the suit. The plaintiff brought this suit for contribution of the deficiency in the stamp duty and the penalty paid by him in the former suit No. 173 of 1930. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that they were not liable for contribution. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has dismissed the suit. The question for determination is whether the plaintiff has any right of contribution. The only section under which a ...
Kuer Mohammad Ashraf Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Behari Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.1004
1. These are two appeals against, decrees of the lower Appellate Court confirming decrees of the Court of first instance dismissing the claims of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in both the suits were the same persons although the defendants in each suit were different. However, both suits acres out of precisely , similar facts and circumstances and, therefore, they were conveniently dealt with together by the lower Appellate Court. We also propose to dispose of both the appeals in this judgment. The facts relating to both cases can be shortly stated as follows: On January 21, 1918, the defendant in each of the two cases executed usufructuary, mortgages in favour of the plaintiffs' pre-decessorin-title, the mortgagor in Appeal No. 627 of 1933 being one Behari Lal and the mortgagor in Appeal No. 1517 of 1933; being one Ram Prasad. On the same date the respective mortgagors executed qabu-liats in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title whereby they retained possession of the mortga...
B. NaraIn Das Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All441
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendant-respondent for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's case was that he had obtained permission for construction of a building a portion of which was constructed in 1927 in respect of which the prosecution of the applicant under Section 307, U.P. Municipalities Act, was launched in 1928. In that case it was decided that in view of the provisions of Section 180, Municipalities Act, the plaintiff would be deemed to have granted sanction and consequently he could not be prosecuted for the construction then in dispute as having been made without permission. The plaintiff made another construction which is in dispute in this suit in continuation of his previous construction, in respect of which another prosecution was launched against the plaintiff by the defendant under Section 307, Municipalities Act, in 1929. The plaintiff was acquitted. On his acquittal the plaintiff br...
Brij Mohan Lal and anr. Vs. Hazari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All90; 160Ind.Cas.879
Thom, J.1. The question referred to this Bench for decision arose in the consideration of a second appeal in a suit in which the plaintiff sought for an order from the Court directing the defendants to open certain drains and for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' right to drain off the rain water and sewage from their house through these drains. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit. The order of the first Court was modified by the lower appellate Court. In second appeal an injunction was granted to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from closing the drains so as to prevent the rain water flowing from the plaintiff's house through the drains. So far as the latrine water is concerned however the plaintiff's prayer was refused upon the ground that the right to drain sewage water was not a continuous easement within the meaning of Sections 5 and 13, Easements Act. It was not disputed that the easement was apparent an...
Ram Jiwan and anr. Vs. Inder Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All722; 163Ind.Cas.239
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that l/3rd share of defendant 3 in the properties described in the plaint was liable for attachment; and sale in execution of his (plaintiff's) decree No. 946 of 1929. The plaintiff's case was that he had a decree against defendant 3. Ha applied for attachment and sale of the property of defendant 3. An objection was filed by defendants 1 and 2, who have got his share sold in execution of their decree, and the objection was allowed. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that defendants 3 and Jadunandan were brothers, that they were joint, that Jadunandan had executed a deed as head of the family in their favour and that defendants 1 and 2 obtained a decree on the basis of the said deed and in execution thereof got the shares of Jadunandan and Jagannath both sold. An objection was filed by Jagannath to the attachment of his. share, which was disallowed on 16th...
Shankar Lal Vs. Hakim Syed Ali Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All102; 160Ind.Cas.991
Bajpai, J.1. This appeal is connected with Revision No. 156 of 1934 and the same question of law is raised in both proceedings. It appears that one Hakim Saiyid Ali Ahmad was adjudged an insolvent in 1910. In the year 1930 he applied under Section 35 for annulment of adjudication, but his application was dismissed and the dismissal order was maintained up-till the High Court. In those proceedings the insolvent made an attempt to obtain a reduction in the contractual rate of interest on his debts and it was held by the learned District Judge that:An application under Section 35 is something quite different; the Court is not functioning as a distributor of assets at all. It is therefore no part of the Court's duty to start calculating what rate of interest ought to be paid to each creditor. Before the debtor can ask the Court to annul the order of adjudication he has to prove to the Court that he has paid up his total debts in full including all the interest up to the date of payment tha...
Raj Deo Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Janak Raj Kuari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All154
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of the estate of Basdeo Singh whose daughter, the plaintiff, Mt. Janak Raj Kunwari, claims to be. The suit was filed on 18th December 1929, and the age of the plaintiff given in it was 16 years and 8 months. The plaintiff denied that Basdeo Singh had loft any posthumous son as had been found by the revenue Court on a previous occasion, and alleged that the other two daughters of Basdeo Singh were dead. On behalf of the defendants it was denied that the plaintiff was the daughter of Basdeo Singh and a positive case was set up that she was the daughter of one Ram Kishun Singh. The main question in the case was whether Mt. Janak Raj Kunwari was the daughter of the deceased Basdeo Singh. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's evidence is reliable and has rejected the defendants' evidence, and has accordingly decreed the claim. This finding is challenged in a...
Mohru Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All193
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore of the case of King-Emperor v. Mohru Lal under Sections 408-409, I.P.C., on the ground that the Magistrate of Cawnpore has no jurisdiction to try this case. The charge as actually framed by the Magistrate is that Mohru Lal, between the dates of 10th May and 18th December 1934, being a factor of broker, servant or agent of Matadin Bhagwan Das, did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 19,013-5-9 and committed an offence under Sections 408-409, I.P.C. The Magistrate has omitted to put the place of occurrence of the offence. For the accused it is contended that the allegations of the complainant amount to a charge of a commission of an offence somewhere in Bengal and that the Cawnpore Court has no jurisdiction to try such an offence.2. For the complainant the allegation is that the offence can be enquired into in Cawnpore and that the Cawnpore Court has jurisdiction. The allegations in the complaint are that the ...