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.
Jugal Kishore Vs. Mr. P.K. Banerji, Official Receiver
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.964
ORDERNiamat-Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of a decree passed by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. The appellant in this Court was the defendant in the lower Court. The suit which has given rise to this revision was brought by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of Rs. 896 and interest on foot of an agreement admittedly executed by the defendant. The agreement recites that the plaintiff had agreed to give credit to Ganga Sahai Sat Narain for the sum of Rs. 800 which represented the price of cloth bought by the aforesaid persons and that he had stood surety for the payment of that sum but that as they had failed to make the payment the executant (the defendant) was made liable and agreed to pay it without interest by instalments of Rs. 150 a year.2. One of the pleas taken in the lower Court and the sole ground of revison in this Court is that the suit is barred by limitation. The agreement is dated January 10, 1931, and the suit was brought o...
Mewa Singh Vs. Beni Madho Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All559
Niamattullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution brought by the plaintiffs-respondents. On 27th November 1930 two complaints were filed in the criminal Court, One by kapal deo Singh against eight persons, i9ncluding the present defendant, Mewa singh, and the other by Mewa ingh, against Kapal Deo, the complainant in he counter case, and the three plaintiffs-respondents. It was common ground that a fight had ensued in which Kapal Deo received injuries and so did the defendant, Mewa Singh, The latter's injuries were grievous, as was subsequently discovered on medical examination. The plaintiffs were acquitted. It is immaterial for the purposes of this case whether the other accused in the two cases were convicted.2. The suit which has given rise to the present appeal was brought by the plaintiffs-respondents on the allegation that they had been prosecuted by the defendant, Mewa Singh, for an offence under Section 325, Penal Code, ...
Paduman Das Vs. Shrimati Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All649; 155Ind.Cas.365
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that the western wall of house No. 24-70 situate in Mohalla Gopal Das Sahu, Benares City, appertains to house No. 24-70 which belongs to the plaintiff and defendant 2 and that it was not the eastern wall of house No. 24-68 which belongs to defendant-respondent 1, and that the plaintiff was not bound by decree No. 521 of 1925 in the case of Ganesh Das v. Srimati Parbati, defendant. The plaintiff further prayed for the demolition and removal of certain constructions alleged to have been made in the intervening wall in dispute as they interfered with the privacy of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. that the wall in dispute was a joint wall of the parties and that the suit was barred by Section 11, Civil P.C. Both the Courts below have found that the suit was barred by Section 11,...
Tirkha Ram and anr. Vs. Pt. Murari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All720; 158Ind.Cas.109
Harries, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the lower appellate Court reversing an order of the Court of first instance decreeing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs-appellants are zamindars of the village Mahadeo. Tirkha Ram being the zamindar of Mahal Tirkha and Ram Prasad being the zamindar of Mahal Ram Prasad. The defendant-respondent Murari Lal is the vendee of a dwelling house situate in the village of Mahadeo and the defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were the vendors of this dwelling house.2. The claim against Murari Lal and the other defendants-respondents was for possession of this dwelling house on the ground that defendants-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had no power to sell the house and therefore could transfer no interest in it to the defendant-respondent Murari Lal. The defence to the claim was that in this village of Mahadeo there exists a custom whereby the tenants can transfer their houses to transferees. In other words they could dispose not only of the mater...
Anrudh Rai and anr. Vs. Sant Prasad Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All746a; 155Ind.Cas.569
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court affirming the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs brought a suit in the civil Court in respect of a grove in the possession of defendants 1 and 2, who also are zamindars, on the allegation that they purchased it from a tenant on 12th January 1917, who had no right to sell the grove, without the permission of the zamindars. At the time of the sale deed, the plaintiffs' father was alive, and although he survived till 1925, he did not bring any suit against the defendants. The present suit was filed on 18th April 1919, just over twelve years after the date of the sale. The plaintiff No. 1, the eldest brother is an adult, but the other brother is a minor. The defendants pleaded adverse possession over the grove and the finding on the question of adverse possession is against the plaintiffs. Their contention is that the claim of the plaintiffs is not barred by...
Jagai Kurmi and ors. Vs. Harakh Raj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1935
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.116
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff for possession over a mahua tree and to recover Rs. 10 as damages for fruits and branches of the tree alleged to have been wrongfully appropriated by the defendants. The plaintiff's case was that he was the zamindar and the tree in suit had been planted by him and he had been appropriating its fruits. The defendants contend that the tree was in their occupancy holding and that they and their prede-cessors-in-title had all along been appropriating its fruits. The trial Court found that the tree belonged to the plaintiff and gave a decree for possession but dismissed the suit for damages holding that the defendants were entitled to appropriate the fruits. In appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff had a right to appropriate the fruits and decreed the suit in full as the tree had been planted by the plaintiff.2. A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›