Allahabad Court October 1936 Judgments
Attar Singh Vs. Debi Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All243
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claimed that they and defendant 2 were owners of the land in dispute and asked for the following relief:The plaintiffs and defendant 2 may be put in actual and absolute possession of the land, etc., by ejectment of the defendants.2. Defendant 2 did not appear at the trial at all, and does not appear to have engaged a counsel. The trial Court decreed the claim in the following words :The suit is decreed with costs for possession, etc.The decree that was. framed by the trial Court read as follows:The claim of the plaintiffs and defendant 2 for possession, etc., be decreed and defendants should remove the materials etc.3. The defendant preferred an appeal to the District Judge against the plaintiffs only and did not implead defendant 2 at all. It struck the appellate Court at the time of the argument that defendant 2 was a necessary party, and purporting to act under Order 2, the...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasitey Mal Vs. Har Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All99
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against concurrent decrees of the two lower Courts. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff was a mortgagee under a simple mortgage from Pancham deceased, and his minor brother Ram Dayal,. dated 6th August 1928. These two mortgagors were sons of Har Prasad, defendant 1, who is still alive. The property mortgaged was a house. Para. 3 of the plaint sets out:Pancham, the principal mortgagor, is dead, defendant 1. the father, and defendant 2, the brother, are the heirs in possession of the property left by the deceased and are liable to pay the debt claimed.2. The defence taken on behalf of Har Prasad and the minor Ram Dayal, was that Pancham was not the owner of the House and had no right to mortgage the house, and that the house had been exclusively acquired by Har Prasad out of his own funds. The trial Court found that the house in question had been bought by a sale deed of 16th March 1925 in favour of Pancham and Ram Dayal minor, but...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Charan Ram Saithwar and ors. Vs. Banka Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All348
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against the decree of the lower appellate Court granting the suit of the plaintiffs in terms of relief in para. (a). The facts are simple. One Mahabir Chand owned a six annas share in mahal No. 9 of mauza Atsia. He died many years ago and was succeeded by his widow, Mt. Rachpal Kuari, and afterwards by his daughter, Mt. Baijnath Kuari, as limited owners. In the year 1910 Mt. Baijnath Kuari sold three annas share of the zamindari to Achaibar, father of the defendants, and in the same year she sold a three annas share to Bindeshari Chand. She then died in 1912. The plaintiffs were entitled to succeed to 2/3rds of the zamindari of Mahabir Chand, but they did not bring any suit for possession until the year 1924, when the suit for possession of 2/3rds of the zamindari was filed and obtained a decree on 13th August 1925. Meanwhile several matters had happened in regard to this six annas share in mahal No. 9 as the lower appellate Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All117
ORDERThom, J.1. The applicant, Mahadeo Prasad, was convicted under Section 408 or in the alterative Section 408/109, I.P.C., by a Magistrate of the First Class and sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Sessions Judge, who set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 408 or Section 408/109 and directed that the applicant be committed to the Sessions to stand his trial for an offence under Section 477-A, I.P.C. The prosecution alleged against the applicant that he conspired with one Sita Ram to cheat the Benares State in which they were both employed. According to the prosecution evidence, money was, collected by the, applicant and by Sita Ram from tenants of the estate and a portion thereof was misappropriated by them. It appears that receipts for the full amount collected from the tenants were granted but that the amounts in the counterfoils of the receipts were altered and that the books of the State were falsified with a view to showing...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R, a Mukhtar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All50; 166Ind.Cas.818
ORDER1. This is an application by R, who was at one time a 'mukhtar' and revenue agent, practising at Budaun. His name was struck off the roll by an order of this Court, passed on 30th May 1929, on the ground that he had been convicted of criminal breach of trust under Section 409, I.P.C., and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 500, to which the sentence was reduced by the Sessions Judge on appeal. The present application was made by him on 24th January 1935 for reinstatement on the allegation that he has reformed himself in the interval and, in spite of trying circumstances, he has steadfastly maintained a high standard of honesty. In support of his allegation he has produced a large number of testimonials given by leading men, official and non-official, of his district testifying to his upright character and honesty. He also relies on the judgment of the Munsif of Sahaswan in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1929, which was instituted shortly after his convictio...
Tag this Judgment!Nadir HusaIn and ors. Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All169; 167Ind.Cas.670
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decree of the High Court in a mortgage suit. The claim was brought for recovery of Rs. 17,000 against defendant 1 principally, with a prayer that defendants 2 to 4 were liable to pay Rs. 7,625 under a hypothecation bond, and in case of default the mortgaged property was liable to be sold. There was a further relief that in, case the mortgaged property was not found sufficient to satisfy the mortgage decree the plaintiff would be permitted to apply for a money decree against defendant 1. The value of the subject matter in dispute in the trial Court was more than Rupees 10,000 so far as all the defendants were concerned but was less than Rs. 7,525 so far as defendants 2 to 4 were concerned, but their property which had been mortgaged was sought to be sold under the decree. The learned Subordinate-Judge came to the conclusion that defendant 1 was liable for the full amount but that defendants 2 to 4 were l...
Tag this Judgment!Hakim MoIn UddIn Vs. Shiekh Abdus Samad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All78
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned civil Judge. The plaintiff-respondent brought a suit against the-defendant-appellant for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from working his flour-mill in house No. 104 in mohalla Khalifa Mandi, Allahabad. The plaintiff's house is No. 126 and adjoins the defendant's house No. 104. The defendant set up a flour-mill with a 45-50 H.P. engine in house No. 104 in September 1931 with the permission of the Municipal Board. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the grant of permission by the Municipal Board to the defendant but it was rejected. Thereafter the defendant set up his mill and worked it for sometime. The plaintiff has stated his case in para. 4 of his plaint as follows:The vibrations, sound and smoke o the defendant's mill have rendered the plaintiff's house uninhabitable. They have created a great nuisance, and affect the health adversely. The plaintiff's house has ...
Tag this Judgment!Baryar Singh Vs. Ram Dularay
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All96
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a judgment-debtor raising the question of the interpretation of Section 30, Sub-section (2), U.P., Agriculturists' Belief Act (Act 17 of 1934). The following dates are relevant : On 19th January 1929 the judgment-debitor executed a simple mortgage for Rs. 300 at 2 per cent simple interest per mensem in. favour of the decree-holder. On 18th January 1935 a suit was brought on this mortgage and on 28th February 1935 the written statement was filed. Both of these dates occur before the Act came into force, which was 30th April 1935, with the assent of the, Governor-General in Council, and publication was made in the Gazette on 27th April 1935. It is possible that his Gazette had not reached Shahjahanpur before the arguments were heard on 1st May 1935, and the suit was decreed on that date. Consequently no plea was made for reduction of interest under Section 30, Sub-section (1). An application was made on 10th October 1935 by the judgment-debto...
Tag this Judgment!(Raja) Veni Madho Prasad Singh Vs. M. Wazid Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All90
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff, the Raja of Kantit, who brought a suit for damages for libel against an Inspector of Police, M. Wajid Ali, and his suit was decreed for damages of Re. 1 only. There is also a cross-objection claiming that the suit should be dismissed in toto. The plaintiff set out that the defendant was actuated by feelings for certain Muhammadans against whom the Raja had taken action preventing them from obtaining fuel, etc., from Bijaipur jungle and that in the Sessions Case No. 5 of 1932, Sarjoo Gond v. Bhagwan Singh and Ors., under Section 395, I.P.C., the defendant had been ordered to make an investigation and he submitted a false and wrong report in which the defendant, without reasonable and probable cause out of sheer malice, made false statements which are claimed to be libellous and defamatory and which are as follows:(1) These improper acts of the Raja Saheb are sufficiently known in that neighbourhood and 'very one hates him on account ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Ram Sarup Vs. Mt. Kaniz Ummehani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All165
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that no Letters Patent appeal lies. In a suit for a declaration that certain property was not liable to attachment and sale an injunction was granted by the Court below. As the valuation of the suit was more than Rs. 5,000, a first appeal from order was filed in this Court and a learned Judge of this Court has modified the order for injunction. A Letters Patent appeal has been filed from this order. Two points are urged in the objection. The first is that this is a second appeal from an order passed by the trial Court, and that accordingly under Section 104(2) no such appeal lies; the second is that the order for injunction is not a judgment and no appeal lies under Clause 10, Letters Patent. As regards the first point, reliance is placed on Piare Lal v. Madan Lal A.I.R. 1917 All. 325, in which case it was certainly held that where an order had been passed by a Single Judge of this Court in an appeal from an order no fur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »