Allahabad Court February 1935 Judgments
Official Receiver and ors. Vs. Hira Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All727; 155Ind.Cas.673
1. This is an appeal by the decree-bolder arising out of an execution proceeding. A simple money decree was passed on 1st August 1924, and an application, which was in accordance with law, was made on 23rd July 1927, for execution, but had become infructuous because the decree-holder was unfortunately murdered. On 18th June 1930, an application was made on behalf of his three sons for substitution of their names and for execution of the decree. The application was signed by a pleader and was accompanied by a vakalatnama in which however the place meant for the name of the pleader was left blank, and the vakalatnama did not bear any signature of the pleader showing that he had accepted it. The facts were overlooked by the office, and the Court ordered notices to issue to the judgment-debtors. They did not appear to show cause or raise objections. The Court accordingly ordered that the names of the sons of the deceased decree-holder should be brought on the record in his place and that e...
Tag this Judgment!Baboo Singh Vs. Ram Manohar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All774; 155Ind.Cas.824
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the appellant for declaration, of his right to half of the tank in dispute and in the alternative for possession. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The plaintiff is one Baboo Singh. The defendants are vendees from Amarjeet Singh and Bijai Bahadur Singh under a sale-deed, dated 27th April 1917. The relationship between the plaintiff Baboo Singh and the defendants vendors will appear from the following pedigree:A|--------------------------| | |Mangal Singh Debi Singh Daulat| |Baboo Singh, plaintiff ||-------------------------| |Amarjeet Singh Bijai Bahadur Singh,| |----------------Defendants' vendors.2. It has been found by both the Courts below that the tank in dispute, (No. 708 old and 851 new) was purchased at an auction by Daulat, who acted in that transaction on behalf of himself and his two brothers. Daulat died is sueless and his interest devolved upon his two brothers either by survivo...
Tag this Judgment!Salig Ram and ors. Vs. (Babu) Gauri Shankar Tandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All542; 159Ind.Cas.151
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the respondent for recovery of possession of plots 63, 64, 68 and 69 and for demolition ot certain constructions made by the defendants on those plots. The plaintiffs' case was that the above mentioned plots were included in his zamindari which was in possession of a usufructuary mortgage for a considerable length of time, that foe redeemed, the mortgage in 1928 and found the defendants to be unlawful possession of portions of the aforesaid plots the latter having constructed certain buildings, such as 'sahdari, latrine, etc.,. thereon. The suit was brought on 19th. June 1931, so that there could be no question of limitation if the plaintiff's cause of action accrued when he redeemed the usufructuary mortgage. The defence was that many of the buildings in question in the case were not situate in any of the plots above-referred to, that the defendants made the constructions that might be found, to be situate in those plots,...
Tag this Judgment!Sumera and ors. Vs. Mormukat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All632; 157Ind.Cas.256
Niamatullah, J.1. This second appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the two minor plaintiff-respondents for setting aside a sale-deed, dated 14th August 1928, in favour of the defendant-appellants by defendants 5 and 6, who are respectively the father and mother of the plaintiffs, and for possession of the property to which that deed relates. The plaintiffs' mother (defendant 6), acquires an interest, in the property in dispute under a deed of gift, dated 3rd June 1920, executed by her husband, the father of the plaintiffs. (Defendant 5). The lower Courts found that the deed of gift conferred a life interest on the donee, the plaintiffs' mother, and that the sale-deed, relied on by the appellants, validly conveyed only her life interest to them. As regards the remaining interest, the sale-deed has been declared to be invalid as against the plaintiffs, who will be entitled to recover possession from the appellants after their mother's death. The defendants assail the decree of the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Banaphal Singh Vs. Noor Mohammad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All662; 155Ind.Cas.634
Niamatullah, J.1. This second appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the appellant for recovery of possession of plot No. 258 with trees standing' thereon. The trial Court decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed it.2. It is common ground that the plaintiff owned what looked on the spot like a grove surrounded by a ditch all round. It, is however composed of two distinct plots, No. 257 area 753 karis or one bigha 6 bis was 14 dhurs and No. 258 area 97 kari or 3 biswas 9 dhurs. There are tiroes all over the grove on both the plots. The plaintiff executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant in 1925 in respect, of a grove which is described in the body of the sale-deed as No. 257, area 753 karis, bounded as stated at the foot of the deed. The boundaries include not only plot No. 257, but also No. 258. The lower appellate Court treated it as a case of ambiguity and proceeded to decide on evidence whether the sale-deed was meant to cover the enitire grove, including plots ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Shekhar Vs. Sri Thakurji Maharaj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All642; 155Ind.Cas.668
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision by a plaintiff against an order refusing review. The plaintiff brought a suit for possession of a part of a village which was revenue-free and the defendant filed an objection that, the court-fee was insufficient. The Court passed an order in regard to the amount of court-fee, and calculated the profits under the Court-fees Act, Section 7(v)(c) after hearing the parties. The review asks that the Court should reconsider that order on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. In the grounds of revision it is set out that there was an error as profits had not been calculated for the next previous year but for a period much prior. Learned Counsel explains that the suit was brought on 26th January 1933, and that in his opinion the year to be taken was the year 1932. He bases this on the General Clauses Act, definition of 'year' as calendar year. But it is stated in Section 3 that these definitions will apply '...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal and anr. Vs. Bohra Ram Chandra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All942; 159Ind.Cas.517
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal of the defendants, who are appellants before us under Order 41, Rule 11. The facts are that a suit was brought for arrears of rent in the Revenue Court at the rate of Rs. 115 per annum for 1338-1339 F. The defence was that the amount should be at the rate of Rs. 70 only and that the rent had been paid up. The trial Court found that the rent should be Rs. 70 per annum and that it had not been paid and decreed it on that rate. The plaintiff appealed to the lower appellate Court on the question of what was the rate of rent. The lower appellate Court had before it three pieces of evidence, first, there was in evidence a registered deed of lease by the plaintiff and a counter lease or kabuliyat by the defendants also registered; secondly, that the tenants verified the rent as Rs. 115 per annum before the Sadar Qanungo, thirdly, that the defendants admitted that since ...
Tag this Judgment!QutubuddIn Vs. Mangala Dubey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All771; 155Ind.Cas.829
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises from a suit for possession of two plots : Nos. 394-1 and 494, by ejectment of defendant 1, who claims it under a mortgage deed executed by defendant 2. The plaintiff and defendant 2 are recorded co-sharers of a 'khata' in which the plots in suit lie. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit so far that joint possession was allowed to the extent of 11-12. The lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The 'khata' in which the plots in suit are situated originally belonged to one Makhdum Bakhsh. In 1906 he executed a deed of gift in respect of the entire khata in favour of his daughter's sons, Abdur Rauf and Muhammad Hanif. Makhdum Bakhsh subsequently died, leaving a daughter, Wasiha Bibi, and her two sons, the donees, Qutubuddin is the son of Zaibunnisa, daughter of Wasiha Bibi. Mutation of names was effected in favour of the donees, Abdur Rauf and Muhammad Hanif. The latter died, apparently un married, and his s...
Tag this Judgment!Secy. of State Vs. Firm NaraIn Das Shyam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All525; 155Ind.Cas.97
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council, through the Agent of the Eastern Bengal Railway and the East Indian Railway for the revision of an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Aligarh, in which the suit of the oppisite party for Rs. 32 damages was decreed. The circumstances are stated in the judgment of the trial Court. It appears that the plaintiff had consigned a number of bags of rice for despatch to Aligarh and that when the rice arrived at the station of destination, damage was found to have been caused to the extent of six maunds, and the plaintiff therefore sued for compensation to the amount of Rs. 30, the value of the rice.2. In decreeing the suit the Judge noticed the evidence brought by the Railway to prove that the wagon was water-tight, and he also noticed that in the Risk Form A, which represented the contract between the parties, a note had been made when the goods were despatched that the bags in which ...
Tag this Judgment!Jafar HusaIn and ors. Vs. Pearey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All575
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a perpetual injunction which has been granted by the lower appellate Court. The defendants have appealed.2. The plaintiff-respondents represent the Hindu population of village Aghwanpur (Mughalpur) in the District of Moradabad. The defendants were impleaded in a representative capacity and defended the suit on behalf of the Muslim community of the same village. The plaintiffs' case was that they desired to celebrate Ram Lila in 1932 arid to take out a procession from a certain place in the village to another place in five same village. The Mahomedans objected on the ground that both the Ram Lila and the procession were 'innovations' and that the Hindus had no right either to celebrate the Ram Lila or to take out any procession, as they were opposed to the sentiments of the local Muslims. It appears that the District authorities embarked upon an inquiry as to whether Ram Lila had been celebrate...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »