Allahabad Court December 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.
Lala Sohan Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.445
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Muzaffarnagar has made a reference that a sentence of fine passed under the Municipalities Act for breach of a bye-law should be set aside. The bye-law is to the following effect:No person shall build, keep a stall or otherwise interfere with or encroach upon any land which is the property of His Majesty or of the Board, or which is under the control of the Board, unless permission to this effect has been duly granted by order on behalf of His Majesty or the Board, and no person shall continue to do so after such permission has ceased to be in force or has been withdrawn.2. The fact is that the accused person Sohan Lal had constructed certain projections (chajjas and todas) over some land which was claimed by the Municipal Board as being part, of a public street. It is admitted that this land was the property of a private owner Bishambhar Das. At one time the Municipality made an attempt to buy this land and afterwards to acqui...
Babu Ramesh Chandra and anr. Vs. Firm Kashi Ram-bhajan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.330
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by plaintiffs against a decree of the Small Cause Court of Farrukhabad dismissing a suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are two minors who sued through the Collector of Farrukhabad as manager of Court of Wards for a sum of money alleged to be due from the defendant on the basis of a bahi-khata account. The lower Court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The Court found that on November 17, 1928, the defendant purchased a hundi from the plaintiff for Rs. 2,502-5-6 and, therefore, became in debt to the plaintiff for payment of that amount A few days later, on November 20, 1928, the father of the plaintiffs died. By November 25, 1929, the defendant firm had paid almost all the principal but apparently the interest was not paid. On November 16, 1929, the defendant firm made a payment to the plaintiff by a cheque (Ex. 1). This was the last transaction and the suit was brought more than three years after this date in 1934. There is no do...
Mt. Asghari Begam and anr. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All750; 165Ind.Cas.709
1. This is a first appeal from a decision dated 28th April 1931 of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Muttra. The suit was brought by one Mt. Asghari Begam and her daughter Mt. Rabia Khatun for a declaration that they and certain other defendants, who were described in the plaint as defendants of the third and fourth party, are the absolute owners of a certain mahal called the Kirpa Shankar mahal in a village called Shazadpur Gujar in the Muttra District. Of the defendants originally impleaded as defendants of the third party, Defendant 13, Irshad Husain Khan, died, and was succeeded by his mother Mt. Moti Begam, his widow Mt. Afsari Begam, and his sister Mt. Siddiqi Begam. There were three defendants of the fourth party; as regards them no change took place during the pendency of the suit. The facts are somewhat complicated but briefly stated they are as follows.2. The property in question was originally owned by two men named Bijai Singh and Krishna. It was mortgaged by them...
Antu Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Kinkar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All412; 163Ind.Cas.283
Harries, J.1. This is a defendants' first appeal against a decree for possession passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur. The plaintiff's in the suit claimed possession of certain properties specified in Schedule A of the plaint and that claim was substantially decreed; hence the present appeal. The plaintiffs claimed the properties as being the reversioners of one Gopal Rai, deceased who died whilst still a minor on 14th December 1918. At the date of his death the plaintiffs alleged that their father Sheo Tahal Rai was the nearest heir and was thus entitled to the estate by right of inheritance. Sheo Tahal Rai however admittedly died some time after Gopal Rai, and the plaintiffs as his only sons now claim that they are entitled to the property as representing their father. After much litigation in the revenue Courts the defendants obtained mutation of their names in the revenue papers; hence the plaintiffs were compelled to bring this suit for possession of the properties....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›