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.
Ram Naresh Singh and anr. Vs. Muneshwar Prasad Tewari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All556
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arid arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendant for demolition of a building alleged to have been constructed by the defendant respondent on the joint land. The parties are cosharers and it is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant had recently constructed a building which he had no right to construct on the joint land. The defendant contended that he had purchased the zamindari share and the house of Durga, Pathak from his heir Padarath Pathak in 1918 and has since been in possession of the same and that he has built his house on the site of the cattle house and courtyard of Durga Pathak. The defendant also contended 'that he started his constructions in 1922 and has spent about Rs. 17,000 and that he had been in exclusive possession of the land in dispute since 1918. He further contended that in 1927, suit No. 35 of 1927 was brought by Achal Bahadur, own brother of plaintiff Ram Naresh Singh, a member of the joint fa...
Nageshar Misir Vs. Mt. Batuka Kunwari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All605
Thom, J.1. This application in civil revision arises out of a suit filed in the Small Cause Court, Ballia, on the basis of a 'sarkhat.' The 'sairkhat' was executed by one Nand Kishore on 26th January 1909 foir a sum of Rs. 400. There is no mention, of interest payable by the debtor in the 'sarkhat.'2. There are two endorsements upon the back of the 'sarkhat' relating to payments to account made by the debtor. One endorsement is dated 17th April 1931. The payment, acknowledged by the debtor upon this date is for Rs. 51. There is no indication in the endorsement as to whether this payment is towards principal or towards interest. The second endorsement is dated 14th January 1932. The amount acknowledged as paid by the debtor is Rs. 128 : and in this case also there is no indication in the endorsement as to whether the payment is made towards principal or towards interest. In the year 1932, after the payment referred to in the second endorsement, Nand Kishore died. The present suit was fi...
Wahid Ullah Ahrari Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All743; 155Ind.Cas.638
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Aligarh upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed by a First Class Magistrate on the applicant under Section 500, Penal Code. The facts on which the conviction has been based are given fully in the order of the Magistrate and the essentials have been repeated in that of the Sessions Judge. It is sufficient to state here that the applicant, was admittedly responsible for two articles which were published in a paper called the University Punch, Aligarh, containing the most scandalous accusations against the girls of the Girls' Intermediate College of Aligarh. The articles are given in full both in English and Urdu in the order of the Magistrate. The first of them asserts that the girls of the college frequented broad Marris Road, green meadows and canal banks which are frequented by pleasure seeking youths every morning and evening for their solace and enjoyment, and also that Meen...
Mt. Nand Rani Vs. Krishna Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All698
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The facts which have given rise to the second appeal may briefly be stated as follows : Babu Ram Narain was the owner of two-thirds share in the house in suit. Mt. Ganga Dei was his widow. They had a son, Babu Parshotam Naith, and one daughter, Mt. Nand Rani. Parshotam Nath's wife was Mt. Shama Kunwar. The family was a joint family governed by Mitakshara Law. On the death of Babu Ram Narain, his son Babu Parshotam Nath succeeded to the family estate by right of survivorship. He died in the month of June 1922 when his widow Mt. Shama Kunwar succeeded to the estate as a Hindu female. She died soon after her husband in the month of December 1922, when Mt. Ganga Dei, the mother of Parshotam Nath, the last male-holder of the estate, succeeded as a Hindu female.2. On 13th April 1923 Mt. Ganga Dei, made a will in favour of her daughter, Mt. Nand Rani. The plaintiffs alleging themselves to be the rev...
B. Suraj Patish Nandan Lal Vs. Mt. Atul Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All569
Bennet, J.1. This is a second apneal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The facts are that on 9th October 1918 one Muhammad Khan, the deceased husband of defendant 1, executed a perpetual lease in favour of the plaintiff of certain plots of sir which were in his possession as a zammdat. Two days later on 11th October 1918 Muhammad Khan executed a mortgage of his zamindari share in this khewafl with possession to one Brij Pat lush, who was a cousin, of the plaintiff and who was held by the trial Court to be joint with the plaintiff. The possession of the sir was never transferred by Muhammad Khan. The mortgage in question was later redeemed by a subsequent mortgagee. The plaintiff has brought a suit for possession, under this lease on 27th June 1930. almost within 12 years of the execution of the lease. The finding of the Courts below is that the plaintiff has never been in possession. The Courts below have held that the suit for possession is barred ...
Munshi Muhammad-ud-dIn Vs. Bhupan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All642a; 155Ind.Cas.658
Ganga Nath, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1347 of 1932 has been heard with this appeal. Both these appeals are plaintiff's, appeals and arise out of two suits brought by the same plaintiff against the defendants-respondents to recover arrears of ground-rent. The plaintiff brought the suits as mutwalli of the abadi in which the defendants' houses are. The defendants contended that they had never paid any ground-rent and that they were not liable to pay any. The plaintiff relied on para. 28 of the wajibularz of 1278 Fasli which is as follows:Raiyats who have settled in the village render service according to their profession and chaukidara is also realised from them according to their status.2. The plaintiff claimed ground-rent from the defendants on the basis of the provision for chaukidara in this wajibularz. As has been rightly held by both the Courts below chaukidara cannot be regarded as ground-rent. On the other hand chaukidara was assessed not to be paid by the defendants on account of t...
Mehrzia Begam Vs. Gulzar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All553; 157Ind.Cas.1119
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. She is an assignee of land revenue in respect of certain zamindari property and the defendants are cosharers in the same property. She brought a suit under Section 223, Agra Tenancy Act, Local Act 3 of 1926 against the defendants for arrears of land revenue in respect of the years 1334, 1335 and 1336 fasli. So far as the present appeal is concerned the only question, which is in controversy is the question whether a joint decree should be passed against the cosharcrs for the entire-claim or whether the separate liability of the various defendants should be apportioned and a decree fixing the separate liability of the various cosharers should be passed.2. When this point was taken before the assistant collector for the first time he held that the suit could be filed against the cosharers collectively and. the decree should be passed against them jointly. On appeal the learned District Judge was of the opinion that the 'liability of the defendan...
Mt. Shahzadi Begam Vs. Alakh Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All620a; 157Ind.Cas.347
Sulaiman, C.J.1. Three questions have been referred to this Full Bench, for an expression of opinion by a Division Bench before which a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a Single Judge of this Court dismissing an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, came up for hearing. On 2nd May 1932, the appellant filed an application in this Court before, a Single Judge for leave to appeal in forma pauperism and that application, as required by Order 44, Rule 1 was accompanied by a memorandum of appeal containing the grounds of objections and also a prayer for the appeal being allowed. No court-fee was, of course, at that time paid on the memorandum of appeal. Both the application and the memorandum of appeal were received by the learned Judge and registered as a Miscellaneous Case, and were later on put up again before him on 9th May 1932 with an office report that the application was beyond time. On that date the applicant was not present in the Court room and her application for lea...
Mt. Bashiran Vs. Mohammad Abrar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All626; 158Ind.Cas.1
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by her against the defendant-respondent for the cancellation of the compromise and the decree dated 24th. March 1930, passed thereon and for the hearing of suit No. 433 of 1929, from the stage in which it. was on 24th March 1930. The plaintiff's case was that she had instituted a suit (No. 433 of 1929), against the defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from flowing water, in the Court of the Munsif of Moradabad, on 4th September 1929. 24th March 1930 was fixed for final disposal. The plaintiff alleged that, she was a pardanashin lady and her son Naqiuddin was looking after the case under her instructions. On 24th March 1930, in the absence of the plaintiff, the compromise in suit was filed in the case without her knowledge and information. On the basis of the compromise her suit was struck off and a decree passed. The defendant contended that the compromise was entered into with the knowledge...
Nawab Singh Vs. Daljit Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All799; 155Ind.Cas.928
Bajpai, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal whose suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The facts may be stated. On 28th June 1920. one Phul Kunwar sold the plaint property to Daljit Singh, defendant, to the present suit for Rs. 400. On 21st April 1921, Daljit Singh sold the same property along with certain mortgagee rights to Gajraj Singh for Rs. 800. It has been alleged in. the present controversy that the sale in favour of Gajraj was a bogus sale and it was not the intention of the parties that ownership should be transferred to Gajraj, but it was apprehended that the sale by Phul Kunwar might be pre-empted by a co-sharer and therefore Daljit and Gajraj adopted the trick of getting a document of transfer executed, Gajraj being an equal cosharer with the potential pre-emptor. A pre-emption suit was actually filed by one Narain Singh on 21st June 1921, and he impleaded Phul Kunwar, Daljit and Gajraj as defendants. His allegation naturally was t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »