Allahabad Court February 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.
Lallu Singh Vs. (Lala) Chander Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All505; 155Ind.Cas.943
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for profits under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. The facts are fully set forth in the order dated 22nd November 1933, which is reported in Lallu Singh v. Chander Sen 1934 All. 155. Before remanding certain issues it was decided by the Full Bench that the plaintiff as assignee of the profits for 1334 F was entitled to maintain the suit against the lambardar and also that such a suit lay in the Revenue Court. It was further held that the defendant can claim adjustiment on account of any decree held by him in respect of any payment of Government revenue made during the year 1334 F, but not earlier. It was also laid down that when an ostensible purchaser who is not a bona fide purchaser and has simply lent his name to a debtor to be used as a cloak for the property, brings a suit to enforce the debtor's claim, it is open to a creditor of the debtor to prove the nature of the transfer, and that the suit can be regarded as a...
Abdul Ghani Khan Vs. Ram Mohan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All573
ORDERKendall, J.1. This application is made for the revision of an order passed by Mr. K. Banerji on 1st September 1934 purporting to act as an Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad. That order was passed in the course of the hearing of an appeal from an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court Allahabad on 20th December 1932 directing the prosecution of the opposite party Ram Mohan Lai for offences under Sections 193 and 209, Penal Code.2. The circumstances are fully stated in the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, and if the opinions which be expresses in that judgment are supported by the evidence, it is clear that it was not only proper but necessary to grant the application made by Abdul Ghani Khan the present applicant, for the prosecution of the opposite party.3. An appeal was made under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., to the District Judge of Allahabad against the order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court. By some inadvertence the hearing of this app...
Sukhdeo and anr. Vs. Basdeo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All594; 157Ind.Cas.1013
1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for: (1) partition of the plaintiffs' moiety share in the property given at the foot of the plaint; (2) a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to a moiety s'hare respecting' the property not capable of partition by the Civil Court; and (3) rendition of accounts of the profits of the joint family property and business and a decree for a moiety share in the same.2. The properties in dispute in the suit were immovable properties including zamindari, tenancy holdings and house property. We are not concerned in the present appeal with the movables and other properties in dispute in the suit. One Shankar Tcwari died leaving two sons Sukhdeo and Basdeo. Basdeo and his sons were the plaintiffs in the suit and Sukhdeo and his descendants were the principal defendants to the suit. The plaintiffs' case was that Basdeo and Sukhdeo and their descendants continued to live as members of a joint Hindu family till the date of the suit and that Suk...
Mt. Muniran Vs. Ali Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All765; 158Ind.Cas.1
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115 Civil P.C., and is directed against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. The applicant, in this Court was the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of Rs. 152-8-0, instituted in the Court of the Munsif, who had jurisdiction of a Court of small causes upto Rupees 200. It is not disputed that the suit was cognizable by the Munsif on the Small Cause Court side of his jurisdiction Before any proceedings could be taken, the suit was transferred to a Bench of Honorary Munsifs, where it remained pending untill on the application of the defendant, the District Judge transferred it to the Court of the Additional Munsif, Shahjehanpur, who had no jurisdiction to try cases under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The Munsif tried the suit on the merits and dismissed it. The plaintiff appealed from the Mundif's decree to the Court of the District Judge, Shahjehanpur, who held that no appeal lay,...
Pt. Shiam Lal Vs. Abdul Raof
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All538; 155Ind.Cas.131
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit, for damages on the ground that the defendant, a police constable, who cherished a grudge against the plaintiff, made a false report on 28th August 1927 at the police station stating that the plaintiff was leading a riotous mob. It was not till 15th March 1928 that this first information report was produced in Court when the plaintiff became aware of its existence. The suit was filed on 28th August 1928. The defendant in addition to denying the allegation that there was any malice or bad faith on the part of the defendant and denying that the report was false, further pleaded that the claim was barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have applied Article 2, Limitation Act, and dismissed the claim, without going into the question of whether the defendant had, in fact, acted in good faith or not. The case came up in second appeal before a learned Judge of this Court, who referred it to a Bench of two Judges which then referred thi...
Bageshar Misir and ors. Vs. Mahabir Shukul and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All526; 157Ind.Cas.405
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent for joint possession and mesne profits. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants had realized rent from the tenants which were due and payable to the plaintiff. The defendants denied doing so. Defendants 1 and 4, contested the suit and admitted the plaintiff's title to the property in question, but pleaded that they (defendants) had no concern with the property and, as such, they were not liable to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff. Defendant 5 also admitted that the parties had been in possession, but he contested the amount of mesne profits. The trial Court gave a decree to the plaintiff in respect of 3/4th of the two pies and old share. In appeal the learned Additional Subordinate judge decreed the suit for joint possession as well as mesne profits. Against this decision an appeal has been filed by defendants 1 to 4. The chief point for consideration is whethe...
Mt. Joera Bibi Vs. Mt. Fatma and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All656; 157Ind.Cas.610
Niamatullah, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is a mortgagee from Sheikh Mohammad defendant 3 and sued the defendants, three in all for a declaration that his mortgagor is the owner of the property in dispute. In the alternative she prayed for a, decree for possession. It is alleged in the plaint that the property in suit belonged to one Saiduddin, who executed a deed of sale in respect thereof in favour of Mathura Prasad and others. Defendant 3 instituted a suit for preemption on foot of that sale-deed but realised that owing to a certain partition he had no proprietary interest in the tenure in which the vended property was situate. Accordingly he made Mt. Fatima, defendant 1, who had an interest in that tenure to institute a suit for pre-emption. A decree was passed in favour of Mt. Fatima, who obtained delivery of possession followed by mutation of names in the revenue register. The plaintiff's case is that the price deposited in the name of Mt. Fatima, had been paid by defendant 3 and...
ishwar Dayal Vs. Amba Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All667; 155Ind.Cas.546
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the hypothecation bond, dated 2nd January 1925, executed by defendant 2, the father of the plaintiff, in favour of defendant 1, was unenforceable and that the family property mortgaged by that deed was not saleable in execution of an ex parte; decree for sale obtained by defendant 1; on the basis of the said mortgage deed. The plaintiff also prayed for a declaration that the purchase made by defendant 3 in execution of a simple money decree is null and void as against the plaintiff and the property in dispute.2. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 20. The plaintiff's case was that there was no legal necessity for the execution of the mortgage-deed by defendant 2, and the amount, if any, borrowed by defendant 2 was spent by him on 'improper acts and immoral purposes.' It was recited in the plaint that defendant 1 obtained an ex...
Kallu and ors. Vs. Mt. Jayanti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All639; 157Ind.Cas.696
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the respondent for possession of a house. The respondent, Mt. Jayanti, is the widow of one Bhagwan Singh, who admittedly owned and occupied the house till his death. He died about 21 years before the institution of the suit, leaving the plaintiff, his widow, and Mt. Bhagwan Dei, his mother. Bhagwan Dei died in 1931, and the present suit was instituted in December 1932. The plaintiff claimed the house as the heir of her husband. The defendants are the collaterals of Bhagwan Singh.2. The only defence, which need be taken notice of at this stage, is that the plaintiff became unchaste after the death of Bhagwan Singh and left the house which has since been in their adverse possession. The plaintiff had alleged in the plaint that she was dispossessed of the house on the 13th day after the death of her mother-in-law.3. The trial Court framed two issues. One was whether the plaintiff was in possession within 12 ye...
Debi Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.524
Kendall, J.1. The appellant, Debi Ram, has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra of an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He has appealed, and has been represented in this Court by Mr. A.P. Dube. The story for the prosecution is that there was a long-standing enmity between Phool Chand and the accused Nek Ram, brother of the appellant and his family. Nek Ram is the zamindar, and on the date of this incident, June 7, 1934, he had called Phool Chand to the house of the Patwari and demanded arrears of rent from him. There was a quarrel between the two, and abuse, which led to a struggle in which Nek Ram felled Phool Chand to the ground. Afterwards as Phool Chand was on the way home, he was attacked by Nek Ram and also by Buddha and Debi Ram, the present appellant. The last-named had a sword, with which he struck Phool Chand several times on the arm, and Phool Chand fell down and lost consciousness. He was afterwa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »