Allahabad Court May 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 AdhIn Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All843; 158Ind.Cas.529
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C., by the Munsif of Allahabad. The question on which the Munsif entertains some doubt is whether the land on which the owner thereof has planted a grove is 'agricultural land' for the purposes of the Government Notification No. 577/I-A-93 published in the U.P. Gazette of 26th July 1932. The expression 'agricultural land' has been defined in that notification to mean, inter alia, land as defined in the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. The definition of 'land' given in Section 3, Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926, is as follows:Land means land which is let or held for agricultural purpose, or as grove-land or for pasturage. It includes land covered by water used for the purpose of growing sighara or other similar produce, but does not include land for the time being occupied by dwelling-houses or manufactories or appurtenants thereto.2. The proprietor of a land fit for cultivation may make one of two uses of it. He may either let it ...
B. Udeypal Singh Vs. Lakshmi Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All946; 159Ind.Cas.387
Bajpai, J.1. This case has been referred to a Full Bench, because there is some conflict of opinion as to the true meaning and scope of Section 20, Limitation Act, more specifically after the amendment in the proviso by Act 1 of 1927. The facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 250 on the allegation that defendant 1, Ewaz and Nanhe deceased borrowed Rs. 100 from the plaintiff and executed a bond which provided for payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 3-2-0 per cent per mensem, the interest to be compounded every six months. The bond was payable on demand. Defendant 1 and Nanhe deceased paid Rs. 50 on 17th August 1930, towards interest and both of them put their thumb marks on an endorsement of payment at the back of the bond. The endorsement runs as follows: 'Deposited Rs. 50 to-day on 17th August 1930.' There is then an account at the foot of the plaint which, says:Principal was Rs. 100 and interest from 7th October 1927 to 16th Aug...
Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansraj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All995; 159Ind.Cas.977
Niamatullah, J.1. The facts of this case are stated in detail in the judgment delivered by my brother, Allsop, J., with whose conclusions I find myself in entire agreement. I desire to make a few observations on the important question of fact on which the decision of the case largely depends. I have taken time to consider the point in all its aspects and made due allowance for the fact that the Subordinate Judge arrived at a different conclusion. I may however point out that the case is not one in which the trial Court is in a peculiarly better position than the Court of appeal in recording a finding on a question of fact. The conclusion rests on inferences to be drawn from proved circumstances of the case, and not on believing or disbelieving witnesses. Excepting the evidence of Mela Ram, whose good faith is in controversy, the evidence bearing on the point is all circumstantial.2. In all cases of fraud which is not capable of proof by direct evidence, we have to fall back upon infere...
M. Niaz Ahmad Khan Vs. Abdul Latif
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.270
Kendall, J.1. These two appeals arise from a suit which was brought by the plaintiff-appellant against one Abdul Latif and the returning officer of the Municipality of Ghaziabad, for certain reliefs which he claimed as a result of some happenings during the local elections of 1931. The reliefs that he claimed were: (a) an injunction restraining the returning officer from declaring Abdul Latif as a duly elected candidate, (b) in case Abdul Latif was so declared, a declaration that such declaration was void, (c) an injunction against Abdul Latif restraining him from acting as a member of the Municipal Board of Ghaziabad, and (d) a declaration that the District Magistrate's order of November 20, 1931, was illegal, and that the plaintiff was an elector and had been duly nominated from the eastern ward of the Muslim constituency. During the hearing of the appeal I was told that fresh elections would take place again in the autumn of this year, so that reliefs (a) to (c) enumerated above can...
Mahesh Prasad Vs. Shyam Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All909; 157Ind.Cas.273
Kendall, J.1. The circumstances out of which the application has arisen are as follows : The applicant is a decree-holder who had obtained a decree for money on 31st January 1928. He made an application for execution on 20th August 1928, and this application was dismissed in part payment on 5th September 1928. He made a second application on 25th February 1930, and on 9th July 1930, he made an application to the Court to the effect that he had received Rs. 100 from the judgment-debtor and the case might be dismissed in part payment as two months time had been given to the judgment-debtor to pay the balance; and the Court in consequence recorded an order in the following words:Pus hukum hua keh mokadma haza juzwi wasul me khariz Ma jawi aur kharcha zima madiun rahe.It is therefore ordered that this case be dismissed in part payment and the costs be borne by the judgment-debtor.2. The decree-holder has now made a third application on 8th September 1933 which the Executing Court has dismi...
Bhairon Lal Vs. Harbans Chaudhary and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All914; 157Ind.Cas.277
Kendall, J.1. The circumstances out of which this application for revision has arisen are given in the order of the learned Munsif. The plaintiff having made an application that by mistake he had not named Bhairon Lal, son of Chunni Lal, in the plaint, but had named Hira Lal son of Chunni Lal with the result that the decree was given against Hira Lal, as well as other defendants whereas the decree really should have been given against Bhairon Lal, the Court has made the following order:It is therefore ordered that the decree is set aside and the suit will be re heard.2. It is claimed on behalf of the present applicant Bhairon Lal that the Court could not set aside the decree which it had itself given merely on the ground that Bhairon Lal had not been impleaded as a defendant. If the plaintiff really made an accidental mistake of this kind and named Hira Lal in the plaint instead of Bhairon Lal, it appears to me that there must be a remedy such as that contemplated in Sections 151 to 15...
ishwar Sahai Vs. Moti Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.199
Kendall, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 25, of the Small Cause Courts Act of a decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Fatehpur, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff sued for the recovery of Rs. 318, principal and Rs. 182, interest said to have been advanced to the defendant on October 20, 1931, on an oral contract, and his case is that the defendant had subsequently executed a promissory note as collateral security, but that that note had been lost. The defendant denied having received any money from the plaintiff at all. The Court has found that the sum was advanced to the defendant, but that the promissory note which the plaintiff said has been lost was executed at the same time as the advance of the loan and had been handed to the plaintiff as the consideration for the loan itself and not as collateral security. The Court then went on to infer that as the promissory note had not been produced, it must have been executed on an insu...
Genda Lal Vs. Hazari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936All21
Sulaiman, C.J.1. These are revisions from decrees of a Court of Small Causes in which a question of limitation is involved. They have been referred to this Bench as there has been some apparent conflict on the question as to how far the principle of res judicata or estoppel by judgment applies to execution proceedings. A money decree was passed on 12th March 1928, and more than three years after that date, namely on 29th November 1932, the decree-holders filed an application in Court certifying the receipt of Rs. 50 on 11th November 1930. No notice of this was, of course, sent to the judgment-debtor, and the certificate was noted. On the 15th February 1933, the first application for execution was filed, and it was stated in the application that Rs. 50 had been received on 11th November 1930; and there was a further allegation that the judgment-debtor had given a slip, which was lost. The decree-holder prayed for the issue of a warrant of arrest. On 16th February 1933 the office reporte...
Mahabir Vs. Anjuman Wazifatul Muslimin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All872; 158Ind.Cas.762
ORDERKendall, J.1. The facts out of which this application for revision arises are stated in the judgment of the trial Court. The correctness of the decision is assailed on more than one ground. The first is that the Anjuman Wazifatul Muslimin is an unregistered association which could neither sue nor be sued, unless all the members of the association were impleaded. That this is so is clear from a number of decisions of this Court among which may be mentioned the following : Ganesha Singh v. Mundi Forest Co. (1899) 21 All 346, Panchaiti Akhara v. Gauri Kuar (1898) 20 All 167, N.W.P. Club v. Sadullah (1898) 20 All 497 and Ram Sarup v. The Arya Samaj Dharampur 1925 All 337. At this stage however it appears that the plaintiff is not the Anjuman Wazifatul. Mr. Aziz, secretary of the Anjuman, applied for leave to sue in a representative capacity, and the Court after the usual proceedings under Order 1, Rule 8 gave him permission to sue, so that the real plaintiff is Mr. Aziz suing in a rep...
Gopi Nath Vs. Mt. Bekali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All837; 158Ind.Cas.525
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application against the decree and order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Muttra dismissing his suit. The facts are given in the judgment of the trial Court, in which it is said that the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on a technical ground, namely that the bond which has been transferred to the plaintiff by an endorsement only was a mortgage bond and could not be legally transferred, except by a registered document.2. It has been argued by Mr. Chaturvedi that although the security could not be transferred, except by a registered document, yet the security is separable from the debt itself, and as the debt had been transferred to the plaintiff, he was entitled to sue without having regard to the mortgage security. There is some authority for this argument in Ram Saran Das v. Yudhishtar Prasad 1931 All 389, where an assignment of a mortgage bond was made by a Court without execution of a document. Here it is true the assignment was made by...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »