Allahabad Court November 1936 Judgments
Beni Prasad Vs. Lala Parma Nand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All246
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that a certain sale deed was null and void.2. The suit was for a declaration that a sale deed dated 2nd May 1933 executed fey the Court of Wards in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000 was null and void as against the plaintiff after the deaths of defendants 3 and 4. It was the case for the plaintiff that this sale deed related to the haveli or residential house of Rai Bahadur, Lala Juneshwar Das. The owner died in 1926, leaving surviving him his two widows defendants 3 and 4 who succeeded to his entire estate including the haveli in dispute as Hindu widows. It was the plaintiff's case that the haveli was part of the ancestral property of the deceased Juneshwar Das and this does not appear to have been questioned by the defendants.3. According to the plaintiff the superintendence of the estate of defendants 3 and 4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagrup Singh Vs. Mt. Ram Gati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All285
1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand passed by the District Judge. A preliminary decree for sale had been passed under Order 34, Rule 4, directing the sale of certain mortgaged properties. The final decree was passed on 16th March 1929. The mortgage property was sold at auction on 30th January 1930 for a smaller amount than the mortgage debt. On 8th March 1930, the sale was confirmed, the objections filed by the judgment-debtor having been overruled. An appeal was preferred and was disposed of on 13th January 1933, under which the order of confirmation was affirmed. The mortgage deed in question had been executed on 21st July 1914, and the mortgage money was payable in six years. The suit was brought in 1923, that is to say, well within six years of the period fixed for payment. The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to a personal decree as there was a registered deed. On 11th July 1934 he applied for a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6, to which many objection ...
Tag this Judgment!Bisesar Ram Marwari and ors. Vs. Thakur Parasnath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All207
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a decree-holder against an order of a learned Civil Judge regulating the rate of interest under Section 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1934. There was a loan of 1925' and on 31st May 1933 a decree was passed. On 4th January 1936 the Court below varied the interest in accordance' with Section 30. The rate of interest provided in the loan was compound and it was an unsecured loan, the interest being Rs. 1-4-0 per cent per mensem compoundable yearly. Rs 7,900 was the amount of the loan-originally and therefore the case came under Schedule 3, Part C, for loans between Rs. 5,001 and Rs. 20,000 on unsecured loans, -compound interest. For this the formula' is X + 3 1/2. For the period in question it was 4 1/2 per cent, and this is admitted. Therefore the Court should have applied as rate of 4 1/2 + 3 1/2 that is 8 per cent compound interest, Instead of this the Court has-applied for the period between 31st December 1929 and 19th August 193...
Tag this Judgment!Kalicharan Chowdhari and ors. Vs. Raja Beni Madho Prasad Singh and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All257
Harries, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court confirming a decision of the Court of first instance decreeing the plain, tiff's claim. The plaintiff was the zamindar of a village and claimed to recover Rs. 1,125 as zarichaharum due to him on the sale of a grove made by one of the defendants in favour of other defendants on 28th March 1927. He further claimed a sum of Rs. 405 as interest upon the amount due making a total claim of Rs. 1,530. The defendants denied that there was a custom in this village under which zarichaharum could be claimed and further pleaded that in any event no interest should be granted upon the sum of Rs. 1,125 which had been claimed as the principal sum due. Both the lower Courts held that the custom had been established and that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed by way of principal and interest. Against the decision of the lower appellate Court the defendants have preferred this second appeal. It is comm...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Singh and ors. Vs. Basdeo Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All148
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The office reports that the court-fee paid on relief (2) in the plaint was insufficient. The plaintiffs' case was that they and defendants 1 to 11 were all members of a joint Hindu family and no partition had taken place. On 21st December 1896 a document, purporting to be a deed of partition, had been executed, which the plaintiffs alleged, had been procured by fraud and was wrong, with the result that there was no disruption of the joint family. Accordingly the first relief claimed that:A decree may be passed and by means of partition under the Hindu Law of the joint family property, detailed below, possessed by the parties, a moiety share of the plaintiffs may be separated.2. In the alternative, the plaintiffs put forward the case that, even if a partition had in fact taken place and were proved, the properties in list B (and not in list A) had been acquired with the joint funds of the parties, and the parties were in possession and occupation thereof jointly and the...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Brich Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All228
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. Ram Brich, applicant was convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 19(f), Arms Act, and was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from six months to one month and maintained the sentence of fine.2. On the finding recorded by the Courts below the consideration of the case must be approached on the assumption that a spear-head was, on the search of the house of the applicant, recovered from a room in the occupation of the applicant. In other words the applicant was in possession of a spear-head. The question however remains whether the possession of a spear-head could justify the conviction of the applicant under Section 19(f), Arms Act. It is clear from a perusal of Schedule 2, of the Indian Arms Rules, 1924, that the prohibitions and directions contained in the Arms Act (Act No. 11 of 1878) have no application in th...
Tag this Judgment!Nitanand Vs. Roop NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All320
Niamatullah, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for profits for 1335 Fasli. The plaintiff-appellant is the uncle of the defendants. The latters' father, Parma Nand, who was the own brother of the plaintiff, admittedly made collections in 1335 Fasli, though the plaintiff was the lambardar. The defendants pleaded payment. At the trial they produced a memorandum of account, alleged to have been written by the plaintiff, and showing that on 20th August 1928 there was a settlement of account between the two brothers, not in respect of the mahal, but in respect of other transactions, in which the two were interested. According to that memorandum of account, a sum of Rs. 361 was found due from the plaintiff to the father of the defendants. The plaintiff denied the genuineness of the memorandum of account, but both the lower Courts have held it to be genuine. They have also believed the evidence of one of the defendants to the effect that the two brothers had settled the accounts between them...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Sardar Sukha Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All264
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff, Sardar Sukha Singh, prayed for a declaration that a special resolution passed by the Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur was illegal and ultra vires and also for arrears of salary. The plaintiff alleged that he had been in the service of the defendant Board for 12 years, that he had been appointed Secretary to the Board under Section 66, U.P. Municipalities Act of 1916, on 1st November 1917, and that he was Confirmed in the appointment as permanent Secretary on 8th November 1918. The plaintiff further averred that at a meeting of the Board held in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Board, on 3Obh November 1930, the Board had passed a resolution to the effect that his services had been dispensed with from that date and that the resolution was illegal and ultra vires. It is alleged also in the plaint that the plaintiff was discharged in order to make provision for the permanent employment of one Muns...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Mohammadi HusaIn Vs. Mt. Chandro and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All284
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal and involves a very short point for decision. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, which came on for hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar. The pleader, who had been, engaged by the appellant, appeared when, the case was called on for hearing ands presented an application to the effect that the file of the case was very heavy and that owing to other engagements he could not prepare the appeal. For that reason, it was prayed that the appeal be adjourned. The application was rejected The learned Judge recorded the following order:The appellant's pleader is not prepared to argue: the appeal. His application for the postponement of the appeal has been dismissed. I therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution with costs.2. The present appeal is directed against a decree in pursuance of the judgment quoted above. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondents' c...
Tag this Judgment!Sewak Ram and ors. Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All328
1. This is a plaintiffs' first appeal arising out of a suit to eject the defendant, the Municipal Board of Meerut, from a market styled 'Qaiserganj market' and to recover a sum of Rs. 6,091, on account of mesne profits together with profits and interest. The facts which have given rise to this suit can briefly be stated as follows : On 12th March 1887, one Pt. Ganga Ram, a brother of the plaintiff's father, granted a lease to the Municipal Board of Meerut, for a period of 21 years in respect of the properties specified in the plaint. Under the terms of the lease, the lessee was allowed 20% on gross-rental realized by him. The lease further had a covenant for its renewal for a further period of 21 years. On 23rd September 1895, Pt. Ganga Ram died and one Mt. Sundar Kunwar, his widow succeeded to his estate as a Hindu female. On 16th May 1908, Mt. Sundar Kunwar executed a fresh lease under the terms of which the lessee was to get 25% of the gross-rental instead of 20%. This lease also co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »