Allahabad Court November 1936 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.
Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. Prem and Co. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All255
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the claim as against defendant 3, the contesting respondent in this appeal. The plaintiff bank brought a suit against Messrs. Prem & Co., Prem Nath Bhargava and Mt. Sheelwanti, the wife of Prem Nath Bhargava, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,745-6-3. The plaintiff bank also claimed that certain securities which had been lodged with them by Prem Nath Bhargava were liable to be sold in satisfaction of their claim. The learned Munsif decreed the claim against defendants 1 and 2 with costs but dismissed the claim as against Mt. Sheelwanti, defendant 3, with costs. On appeal the learned Civil Judge upheld the findings of the Munsif and dismissed the appeal. Against that decision, in so far as it concerns Mt. Sheelwanti, the plaintiff bank have appealed in second appeal to this Court. The facts of the case can be briefly stated as follows: Prem Nath Bh...
Daya Shankar Vs. Debi Din
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All238
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a defendant, Daya Shankar, against whom the lower appellate Court has decreed possession of a certain plot of land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff set out in his plaint that he was a lambardar and zamindar in an agricultural mahal and that the defendant took unlawful possession of plot No. 697, 7 biswas of land, without any right and set up a tiled shed and kept coal and ashes for three years without the consent of the plaintiff. The written statement alleged that plaintiff was not the owner of any portion of the plot and had never been in possession within the last 12 years. In para. 10 it was pleaded that Pandit Ganga Prasad was the owner of this plot and that the contesting defendant took possession from him and had cultivated the plot for about 18 years. In para. 11 it was alleged that the Contesting defendant had been in adverse proprietary possession of that portion of the plot on which he had his tiled shed for more than 16 years. The main...
Mohammada and ors. Vs. B. Harnand Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All262
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but has been decreed by the lower appellate Court.2. It is common ground that the plaintiffs are the present zamindars of village Baheriki in the district of Saharanpur and the defendant 1 is in the occupation of a house as their riaya. The plaintiffs' case as laid in the plaint is that instigated by the other Mohammaden residents of the village, defendant 1 has built a kachcha chabutra inside his sehan with the intention of eventually converting the site into a mosque and that in furtherance of that design other Mohammadens of that locality are contemplating to use it as a mosque after putting up pacca construction on the site. The plaintiffs object to the land, which belongs to them, being used in the manner desired by the defendants. They impleaded defendant 1, and five other persons in a representative capacity so as to m...
Sarda Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All240
ORDER1. This is a criminal revision from an order of the Sessions Judge convicting the accused under Section 60(a), U.P. Excise Act. On the findings it appears that the house of the accused was searched by the Excise Inspector accompanied by wit-nesses, and a large number of articles were found consisting of (1) liquor contained in two bottles, and (b) a distilling apparatus, pitchers and other utensils containing fermented wash. The Magistrate framed two separate charges (1) under Section 60(a) for being in possession of illicit liquor and fermented wash, and (2) for being found in possession of implements for manufacture of illicit liquor. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the liquor found in the two bottles was illicit liquor and therefore he thought that the accused could not be convicted of any offence under Section 60(a), Excise Act. He accordingly recorded a formal order of acquittal of the charge under that section. He however came to the...
Bhawani Shankar Vs. Mahmud Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All232
Harries, J.1. This is an appeal by one Bhawani Shankar against a decision of the learned Second Civil Judge of Cawnpore dated 25th May 1935 allowing an application of the respondent Mahmud Ali under Section 144, Civil P.C., for restitution of a certain property. The learned' second civil Judge acceded to the application, hence the appeal of the objector Bhawani Shankar. The facts of the case, in so far as they are material to this application, can be shortly stated as follows:2. On 12th February 1917 one Fazal Ali mortgaged certain property by a conditional sale to the applicant and others. On 28th April the applicant together with one Durga Prasad filed a suit No. 15 of 1928 to enforce the mortgage. By this time Fazal Ali had died and the suit was brought against his heirs, some of whom were major and some minor. The present respondent Mahmud Ali was a major whereas his brother and sisters were minors. The minors were represented by a guardian ad litein and eventually the suit was com...
B. Kunwar Bahadur Vs. Gilsher Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All287
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against the concurrent decrees of two lower Courts dismissing his suit. The plaintiff sued on a usufructuary mortgage dated 4th October 1915, a registered document executed by Inayat Khan and Ismail Khan in favour of the present plaintiff Kunwar Bahadur. The amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 500. The mortgaged property is described as a grove bearing certain numbers in an area of 3 bighas 3 biswas pukhta of land of ex-proprietary tenancy; and then follow five sub-numbers 685/1, 685/2,685/3,685/4 and 685/5 as in mahal Kunwar Bahadur, mortgagee, and a description of 325 trees. Some argument was made that only 325 out of 335 trees were mortgaged. It was possible that ten trees were not mortgaged because they had already been mortgaged in mahal Kunwar Bahadur. The mortgage also provided that the interest and the amount of profit would be equal and that in case of non-delivery of possession interest at 2 per cent, would be paid. The reliefs ask...
Ram Saran Das Vs. Mt. Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All115; 166Ind.Cas.894
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bijnor. Be has recommended that an order passed by a Magistrate under Section 488, Criminal P.C., to enforce the payment of maintenance by Ram Saran Das to his wife Mt. Ram Piari should be set aside. He has relied upon the cases in Pal Singh v. Mt. Nihal Kuar A.I.R. 1932 Lah. 349 and Ram Saran Das Mt. Damodri A.I.R. 1934 Lah. 864 for the proposition that an order for maintenance passed upon a compromise between the husband and wife where it is agreed that maintenance shall be paid on certain conditions is an order which cannot be enforced in a criminal Court. There is certainly support for this proposition in the two cases upon which the learned Judge has relied, but I regret to say that I am unable to see any sufficient reason for thinking that the order of the Magistrate was illegal in the present case.2. Mt. Ram Piari made an application in the year 1931 that her husband Ram Saran Das should be directed to pay he...
Bisheshar Dayal Vs. Mt. Jafri Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All251
1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit in -which the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:(a) It may be declared that one biswa property in mauza Papgaon, patti Mehdi Ali Khan, out of 3 biswas 3 biswansis and a fraction more of share and a grove and house situate in mauza Papgaon, bounded as below, owned and possessed by the plaintiff are not fit to be sold by auction in execution of decree No. 131 of 1930. (b) That defendant 2 had no right to mortgage the property, entered in the name of the plaintiff, nor could he do so.2. On 4th June 1918, one Mehdi Ali Khan, the husband of the plaintiff, Mt. Jafri Begam, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Mt. Fakhr-un-nissa. On 6th June 1921, Mt. Fakhr-un-nissa sold her mortgagee rights to the father of Bisheshar Dayal, defendant 1 in the present suit. Bisheshar Dayal brought a suit, No. 131 of 1930, upon the footing of the mortgage of 4th June 1918. In the suit he impleaded the mortgagor, Mt. Jafri Begam, wife of the mortgagor, and Mt....
Chaube Rashik Lal and ors. Vs. Mt. Radha Dulaiya
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All268
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs and arises from a suit for possession which was decreed by the Court of first instance. On appeal by the defendant, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The facts, so far as it is necessary to mention them for the purpose of this appeal, are as follows : The property in dispute belonged to one Janki Prasad and his sons by his two wives. The following pedigree will explain the positions of various persons whose names occur in the statement of the facts of the case: Mt. Manwali (first wife) = JANKI PRASAD = Nai Bahu (second wife) | | |----------|--------------|----------| |----------|-----------|-------|-------| Ram Ram Sewak = Bhagwat Har Das Perma- Chaturbhuj Damodar Nand Rang Prasad Mt. Sarawan Raj = Mt. | nand (adopted in =Radha Kishore Lal | Dulaiya Ujiari | a different Dulaiya | | family) defendant Nathu Ram =Mt. Chaube Rashik Singar Dalaiya Lal | ------------------- | | Avadh Behari Kunj Behari plaintiff 2 plaintiff 3.2. There were disp...
(Diwan) Saiyed Ali Rasul Vs. Seth Balkishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All144
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to the Full Beach:Having regard to the provisions of the Ajmer Courts Regulation 1926 (Regulation 9 of 1926), can a reference be made to this Court under Sections 17 and 18 of Regulation 1 of 1877 on a point of law arising in connexion with an application in execution made after Regulation 9 of 1926 came into force but in connexion with a suit instituted before that Regulation came into force?2. A suit for sale on a mortgage was filed in 1913; and a decree absolute was obtained in 1920. The first application for execution was filed in 1920. Later, owing to the deaths of the parties, there were proceedings for the substitution of names. An objection was raised by the present appellant in 1925 that he was not the legal representative of the deceased. In 1928 the Subordinate Judge decided in his favour; but the order was upset in appeal in 1930. There was a second appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, who set aside the order and hel...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »