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.
Makund Ram Katholia Vs. Harbans Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All841; 158Ind.Cas.618
ORDERKendall, J.1. The facts out of which this application has arisen are as follows : The plaintiff-opposite-party brought a suit for sale on foot of a mortgage. The property mortgaged was alleged to be one-third of a house but as that house had been subject to partition the mortgagee also prayed far a relief for a sum of Rs. 467 which had passed by sale of a decree into the hands of the present applicant, who was not a member of the family which owned the joint house which was subject to the mortgage. According to the applicant, he was not a necessary party to the suit as he had nothing to do with the mortgaged property. The Court gave a decree against the defendants for sale of such of the property as was in their hands. The present applicant made an application for the amendment of the decree about two months later, claiming that he had nothing to do with the mortgaged property and had merely obtained a decree for Rs. 467 against some of the members of the family. The Court conside...
Chandra Shekhar Dixit Vs. Burhwal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All908; 157Ind.Cas.362
Kendall, J.1. The question that has been raised in this application for revision is whether the plaintiff who was employed by the defendant as a clerk was entitled to a month's notice on dismissal in the circumstances stated in the judgment of the trial Court. It is contended on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Shambhu Nath Seth that the practice between master arid servant is for either side to give a month's notice for termination of their contract, or in lieu of a month's notice, one month's salary must be paid to the servant unless he has been guilty of wrongful conduct. No objection has been taken on behalf of the opposite party to this statement of the law, and the question is whether in the circumstances in this case the applicant forfeited his right to a month's notice or salary in lieu thereof by wrongful conduct.2. The plaintiff fell ill in March 1933, and was absent from his work, and he made an application for leave on March 17. The defendant allowed him four days leave, but ...
Ada Elizabeth Smurthwaite Vs. John William Smurthwaite
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All791; 158Ind.Cas.621
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a reference by the taxing officer on the question of what is the proper court-fee for a petition for divorce under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act of 1926. The stamp reporter reported that ill such petitions a court-fee of Rs. 20 had always been paid under Article 20, Schedule 2 Court-fees Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition for divorce was not under the Indian Divorce Act and that Article 20 only refers to a petition for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act. Learned Counsel contended that, the proper court-fee was Rs. 2. The Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act is not merely an act conferring jurisdiction on this Court but the Act further sets out in Section 1, Proviso (a) that the decree shall be granted only on grounds according to the law for the time being in force in England. The Court therefore in hearing this petition does not apply the Indian Divorce Act and therefore the court-fee applicable to...
Tirkha Vs. Ghasi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All842; 158Ind.Cas.516
ORDERKendall, J.1. This is a defendant's application for the revision of an order and decree passed by the judge of the Small Cause Court of Muzaffarnagar, decreeing the plaintiff's suit, which was based on a bahikhata account which had been adjusted and a balance struck on 24th June 1931. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 2nd July 1934, a date which immediately followed the Civil Court vacation, so that if everything had been in order the suit would not have been barred by limitation on that date. The suit however was one for a sum of Rupees 553-8-0, that is to say, it was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. If it had been returned to the plaintiff then and there for presentation to the proper Court, and he had amended the plaint so as to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and filed it again on the same day, he would in fact have been entitled to succeed. What happened however was that the suit was registered, and it was stated in defence that the...
Mt. Latifunnissa Vs. NajmuddIn Shah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All856
1. This appeal arises from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cawnpore, in a suit brought by the appellant, Mt. Latifunnisa, for a declaration that a 'wakfnamah,' dated 24th September 1926, purporting to have been executed by her, and a deed of agreement of even date also-purporting to have been executed by her, are void against her and do not affect her proprietary interests in the property detailed in Schedules 1 and 2, appended to the plaint, and for recovery of possession of a house mentioned in Schedule 3, which is identical with one of the four items of property mentioned in Schedule 1. It has been mentioned in a separate schedule in addition to its reference in Schedule 1, because the plaintiff claims possession of this house, while in respect of other property her suit is confined to a mere declaratory relief. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court which left certain issues undetermined. On the hearing of this appeal a Bench, of this Court remanded the suit for a find...
Thakur Singh Vs. Kandhai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935All852; 158Ind.Cas.904
ORDERKendall, J.1. The circumstances which have led to this application are somewhat unusual. The plaintiff opposite party filed a suit in the Small Cause Court of Allahabad, which was transferred to the Court of the honorary Munsif. The matter was referred to arbitration on 9th November 1935. On 5th February 1934, a report was received from the arbitrator by the Court to the effect that the defendant had failed to appear on some of the dates fixed, that be had finally failed to appear on the 27th January which had been fixed for final disposal and that the arbitrator had therefore no alternative, but to recommend that the plaintiff's claim be decreed ex parte, adding that the defendant might however get the decree set aside by a proper motion if he so desired, as the recommendation made by the arbitrator was an ex parte one. No notice was issued to the defendant on the receipt of this report, and the Court ordered the matter to be put up on 15th February 1934, i.e., after ten days. In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›