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.
Abdul Shakur Khan Vs. Rajendra Kishore Saran Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All759; 155Ind.Cas.1092
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal gives rise to a question of limitation. The plaintiff instituted a suit to recover two sums of Rs. 75 paid by him to the other party on 26th October 1926 and 1st January 1927. His case was that he made these payments by way of premium or nazrana because the defendant-respondent had promised to execute in his favour a lease of a certain holding. He claimed that the sums should be returned on the ground that the defendant-respondent had resiled from his promise and refused to execute the lease. The defendant-respondent did not allege that he was prepared to execute the lease. His defence was that there had been a subsequent arrangement by which the claims of the parties had been adjusted and that for that reason the amounts were no longer due. This defence was disbelieved by the Courts below. I am left, with these facts that the plaintiff advanced these two sums on the faith of a promise made by the other party that he would execute he lease in the plainti...
Madan Mohan Vs. Ram Chander Rao
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All619; 158Ind.Cas.105
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent from a thekadar of agricultural land for the years 1338 and 1339F. The thekadar agreed to pay at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per annum and allowing for payments which had been made, the claim was for a sum of Rs. 701-7-8. The defence raised was that under a contract between the parties the thekadar was liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 400 a year and not at the rate of Rs. 1,400 a year in any year in which there had been remission of land revenue. In the original theka of 1st June 1926 there was a provision that the rate of rent should be Rs. 1,400, but that that should be reduced to Rs. 400 if there were remissions or suspensions. It may be that this document was a little bit Vague, but in a later document of 31st March 1930 it was quite definitely agreed between the parties that the rate should be Rs. 1,400 a year unless the revenue was totally remitted, in which case it was to be Rs. 400 a year. The lo...
Muhammad Musa Vs. Qasim HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All739; 155Ind.Cas.1063
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession over certain property. It apears that the appellant executed a deed of sale on 9th January 1920, in favour of the defendants-respondents. It has been found as a fact by the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court that that, deed of sale was intended to transfer and did transfer only certain property. It so happened that the vendor also mentioned in the deed of sale that he was the owner of certain other property and it is in respect of that other property that the suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted. The vendees applied for mutation of the register not only about the property which is found to have been sold but also about this other disputed property which is the subject of the present appeal. Thereafter the appellant instituted the suit in order to recover-possession over this property. One of the defences was that the property in dispute had been included in the deed of sale and had been trans...
Kailash Pati Sahai Vs. Jagarnath Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All884; 158Ind.Cas.639
Kendall, J.1. This is an appeal by one of the defendants in a suit for a declaration that was dismissed by the trial Court, but decreed by the lower appellate Court. There is a great deal of confusion both of law and fact in the judgment of the Second. Additional Subordinate Judge of Ballia, Mr. Sri Nath, and it is necessary therefore to state at some length the circumstances from which the suit arose.2. Sheo Govind, one of the defendant respondents, was a member of a joint family consisting of himself and his step-brothers, Shambu Nath and Sheo Kumar, who were also joined in the suit as defendants. In execution of a money decree against Sheo Govind certain property was attached and sold at auction, and it was purchased in the name of Mt. Rameshwari Devi, sister of the present defendant-appellant, for a sum of Rs. 1,800. The purchaser got a sale certificate and formal possession, and obtained mutation of names. The validity of this auction-sale was called in question in a partition sui...
Ram Rekha Pandey Vs. Inder Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.967
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff to recover possession over plot No. 487 described in the plaint. The plaintiff's case was that Sheoraj Tewari was its tenant and on his death the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 succeeded to it by survivorship as members of the joint family. Tilku Pandey held the land as sub-tenant from Sheoraj Tewari. Tilku Pandey died 32 years ago without leaving any heir. On his death the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 took possession over the grove in dispute as tenants. Defendant No. 1 applied to the Revenue Court for entry of his name in succession to Tilku Pandey deceased, and on the strength of the order passed by the Revenue Court in his favour he dispossessed the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on August 6, 1931. Defendant No. 1 contended that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 did not belong to the family of Sheoraj Tewari nor were they joint with him and cons...
Data Ram and anr. Vs. L. Jhaoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All200
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in respect of an agricultural holding, which was instituted for the years 1335 to the Kharif of 1338 Fasli. It was held by the trial Court that the rent for the year 1335F could not be recovered owing to the rule of limitation, and there is no appeal upon that point. In respect of the other years-two objections have been taken here. The first is that part of the rent could not be recovered because it constituted the rent of an exproprietary holding and the rate had not been fixed by the Court. The other was that there could not be one suit in respect of arrears of rent for land in two mahals. The suit was for recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 70-1-0 a year. The land in respect of which the suit was instituted was at one time held by two brothers, Jhanjan Singh and Baldeo Singh, who were zamindars with sir rights. Jhanjan Singh transferred his zamindari rights in the year 1916 and became an exproprietary tenant of his s...
Mohammad Taki Khan Vs. Jang Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All529
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to this Full Bench far answer by the Division Bench before which the plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage-deed came up for hearing. On 17th August 1926, a sale deed, was executed by the plaintiff and his uncle along with their wives in favour of the two vendees including the present defendant. The sale deed purported to be for Rs. 11,400, out of which a part was paid in cash and another part was set off against a previous debt and the balance of Rs. 5,000 was stated to have remained in the hands of the vendees who were liable to pay the amount to the vendors. On the same date a mortgage deed was executed by one of the vendees in favour of the plaintiff and his uncle for this sum of Rs. 5,000, under which the mortgagor agreed to pay this amount to the two vendors and hypothecated his immovable property as security for the amount. There was, of course, an admission that this sum was due under the ...
Mt. Shamrati Koer and anr. Vs. Kalika Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All578
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession over the property described in the plaint by redemption of a mortgage by payment of Rs. 300. The plaintiff's case was that his father mortgaged the property in suit to Sanoo Singh, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants by three mortgage deeds for Rs. 300. The mortgage was usufructuary. On the death of Sannoo Singh his wife, Mt. Bodha sub-mortgaged half of the mortgagee rights to Chhabboo Kandu and subsequently she made a gift of the mortgagee rights to defendant 2. Defendant 2 redeemed the sub-mortgage from the heirs of Chhabboo Kandu and acquired possession over the other half of the mortgaged property also. The defendants contended that they were the owners of the property in suit and that no mortgage had been made and their possession was adverse as well as that of a proprietor. The trial Court found that no mortgage was proved and dismiss...
NaraIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All665; 155Ind.Cas.662
Kendall, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly of an offence under Section 366, Penal Code, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The trial was by jury, and the appeal is made on the ground that there was a misdirection of the jury by the learned Judge. The three appellants and. one other were charged with abducting. Mt. Tulsha while she was going on her way to Khamaria with her maternal uncle Hira Lal, in, order that the appellant Narain should commit illicit intercourse with her, and knowing it to be likely that she would be forced to illicit intercourse with another person by means of criminal intimidation. It has been; pointed out that in the charge to the jury the Judge has not explained the ingredients of an offence under Section 366, Penal Code. The first of the ingredients is the abduction of the woman, and the second is the:intention that she may be compelled or knowing it to be likely that she may be compelled o...
Sarju and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All882
Kendall, J.1. The appellants, Sarju and Maiku, were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore with three other persons of an offence under Section 395, Penal Code, and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. They have appealed against their convictions and sentences, and Sarju has been represented in this Court by Mr. Saila Nath Mukerji. The dacoity took place on the night between 4th and 5th June 1934, at the house of one Pitan Lodh of village Rastpur in the District of Cawnpore. Pitan himself and his two sons were not at home on the night in question, and the house was only occupied by womenfolk and some children as well as by one Kunwarwa, son of Pitan's nephew, aged 20. The Sessions Judge was thoroughly satisfied by the evidence that a dacoity did take place at Pitan's house on the night in question, though it was not of a very serious nature, the only property taken being the jewels which were on the persons of the woman, nobody being injured. It did not last a very long...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »