Allahabad Court March 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.
Kan Kuar Vs. Atal Behari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All766; 158Ind.Cas.49
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs-respondents for recovery of rent from Rabi 1335 F to Kharif 1338 F. The suit was originally brought against the defendant by Atal Behari and Sita Ram. On an objection by defendant 1, Lalta Prasad, Daya Shanker and Go bind Prasad, who had been impleaded as defendants were made plaintiffs. Defendant 1 contended that plaintiffs 1 and 2, that is Atal Behari and Sita Ram, were not the landholders and had no right of suit and that the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule (2). Civil P.C. The trial Court found against the appellants and decreed the suit. An appeal was filed and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the learned Assistant Collector, who heard the appeal. Against his decision an appeal was filed to the learned District Judge, who dismissed the appeal holding that no second appeal lay. Against this decision this appeal has been filed. A preliminary objection has been t...
(Firm) Khuni Lal-lachminaraIn Vs. (Firm) NaraIn Das-gopal Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All750
1. This is an appeal from an order of a learned Judge of this Court transferring a suit from the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly to the Court of the Munsif of Agra, and directing it to be tried along with another case pending in that Court between the same parties. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that no appeal lies. We are of the opinion that this objection must prevail. The order transferring the case was an order passed in the exercise of the discretion vested in the learned. Judge and cannot, be regarded as a judgment within the meaning of Clause 10, Letters Patent, as it did not amount to any decision as to the rights of the parties at all.2. The appeal accordingly does not lie. We are further of opinion that the learned Judge had perfect, jurisdiction even independently of Section 24, Civil P.C., to transfer a suit from one Court to another Court under Section 107(b), Government of India Act. An order passed under that section has been expressly mad...
L. Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. Rahat Ali Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All770; 157Ind.Cas.1099
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents to recover money on the basis of a mortgage executed by defendant 1. The defendants contended that the mortgage had been satisfied by the sale of the mortgaged property in favour of defendant 2 who was a member of the joint family of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that defendant 2, the vendee of the mortgaged property, and the plaintiffs in whose names the mortgage-deed is, are members of the joint family and that their business is also joint. The plaintiffs and defendant 2 are own brothers and they have joint business. The Courts below have found that there are circumstances to infer safely that the money advanced to the mortgagor in this case came from joint funds and that it was equally right to infer that the property transferred by the mortgagor to one of the brothers only meant transfer of such property to the joint family of all...
Bachchan and ors. Vs. Daulat Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All64; 160Ind.Cas.865
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed that they were the owners of certain trees growing in a plot of land and that they ware not bound by a deed of sale of the plot with the trees upon it. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court decided that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit and passed an order that the plaint should be returned for presentation in the proper Revenue Court. His point was that the plaintiffs were, in fact, claiming to be grove-holders, and as they could receive adequate relief from the Revenue Court, they could not institute a suit which could be entertained by the civil Court. It is argued in appeal that there is a distinction to be made, because the plaintiffs are not claiming the land upon which the trees grow but only the trees themselves. A reference has been made to Ram Prasad v. Sumer Nath 21 ALJ 33 and Lalta Prasad v. Ram Bahadur 21 ALJ 434. These decisions were reached before the Agra T...
Naubat Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All653; 157Ind.Cas.354
ORDERKendall, J.1. The seven appellants, Naubat Singh, Chob Singh, Ram Sarup, Shib Cliaran, Hansa, Kharga and Karan Singh, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Muttra, of an offence under Section 395. Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each. The dacoity in question took place on the night between 23rd and 24th April 1934, at the house of Angan Lal in the village of Bajna in the Muttra District. As to the fact of dacoity there is no doubt whatever, and it is also clear that it was a dacoity of a very serious nature. Some 25 or 30 persons are said to have taken part in it; they used firearms and they looted the property of Angan and took it away. But it is also in evidence that they met with serious resistance. The village is a large one, and two police constables named Sadiq Ali and Babu Singh with two chowkidars were patrolling it. On hearing the noise pf the dacoity, they came to the spot and finding that looting was going on, they went up ...
S. Tahir Hasan Vs. L. Chander Sen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All678; 157Ind.Cas.511
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an execution of decree appeal by Syed Tahir Hasan, who objected in the Court below to the execution of a decree obtained by the respondent, L. Chander Sen, on foot of a mortgage deed executed by the appellant's patients and the appellant himself, on 21st March 1921, in respect of proprietary right in the right to hold revenue free shares in a number of villages described in the mortgage deed.2. The objector-appellant was a party to the suit in which the decree for sale of the mortgaged property was passed. The father of the appellant had died before the institution of that suit, which was brought against the other two executants, including the appellant, and certain subsequent transferees. The appellant did not, enter appearance, and the proceedings were ex parte against him. His mother however contested the suit. She pleaded that the property to which the mortgage related was not transferable under the Pensions Act 23 of 1871, nor had the Court any jurisdicti...
Mt. Ehatishammunnisa and anr. Vs. Mir Hadi Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All735; 155Ind.Cas.1118
ORDER1. This revision raises a question of a somewhat unusual character. The applicants applied in the Court of the District Judge, Budaun, for a succession certificate in respect Of debts due to their deceased mother, Mehdi Begum. It was stated in the application that the petitioners were paupers and had no funds to pay the fee prescribed for the grant of a certificate for collection of the debts of the deceased. In effect, the applicants prayed that they be exempted from the rule contained in Section 379, Succession Act, which requires the deposit of a sum equal to the fee payable under the Court-fees Act, in respect of the certificate on an application being made therefor. The learned District Judge dismissed the application holding that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, relating to suits and appeals in forma pauperis do not apply to proceedings for grant of a succession certificate under the Indian succession Act. The order of the learned District Judge is challenged in r...
Jawahar Ram and ors. Vs. Jhinguri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All786
1. This appeal has arisen from a suit brought by the appellants for refund of the price paid by them for a zamindari share in two villages to defendant 1 and his 'deceased brother Mahadeo Prasad, who executed a sale deed on 15th April 1907, in favour of some of the plaintiffs and the predecessors of the others. The principal question which arises in appeal is whether the suit has been rightly held by the lower Court to be barred by limitation.2. The plaintiffs were deprived of the property conveyed by the aforesaid sale-deed in consequence of a decree for possession obtained by the sons of defendant 1 in suit No. 69 of 1923. The sons impugned the sale-deed executed by their father and Mahadeo Prasad on the ground that the property which it purported to convey belonged to the joint family of which the plaintiffs of that suit and the vendors were members and that there was no legal necessity for the alienation. The suit was decreed by the first Court on 31st January 1924. Delivery of pos...
Mullu Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All614
Kendall, J.1. Mullu banya has been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Benares, of an offence under Section 307, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The story for the prosecution, which is an unusual one, has been told by the complainant, Chamroo teli, a boy of about 17 years of age. The date of the occurrence is 11th May 1934, and Chamroo made statements on various occasions as follows. On the 14th May, he made a report, at the thana, and on the same day he made a statement, to a Magistrate in hospital at a time apparently when it was believed that he might die. More than three months later he made a complaint to a Magistrate on the 28th August, and subsequently he made a statement in the Court of Session. The long delay between the report at the thana and the complaint has been eating his case, but as a matter of believed that the police were investigating his case, but as a matter of fact they did not take it up. These various statements...
Haidar HusaIn Vs. Puran Mal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All706; 157Ind.Cas.157
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for preemption of a sale deed dated 9th November 1928. The suit was filed on the 8th of November 1929. On the 6th of February 1930, the defendants-vendees obtained a deed of gift in their favour which the present plaintiff also sought to preempt by a second suit. It has now been finally held that it was a transaction of gift and was not perceptible. On 20th December 1930, the Court of first instance decreed the plaintiff's claim for preemption, holding that the second transaction was a sale and not a gift. But on 14th December 1931 the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the second transaction was one of gift and accordingly dismissed not only the plaintiff's claim to pre-empt the second transaction but also his claim to preempt the first sale deed. The finding that the second transaction was a gift has been upheld by the High Court in second appeal.2. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »