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.
BaramdIn Vs. Jamuna
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All123
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by Baramdin, plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed in the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff sued on a promissory note and the only issue foamed was:Did the defendant execute the promissory note and receipt without getting consideration for it? Is he bound to pay the money of the promissory note? To what sum if any is the plaintiff entitled?2. The Court below has not found against, the plaintiff on any of these issues other than a finding that the consideration of the promissory note was illegal in view of Section 6-A, Agra Tenancy Act. Act 3 of 1926, which lays down that sir rights are not transferable. The Court however has failed to understand the provisions of the Agra Tenancy Act. The case was not one of the transfer of sir rights but of the relinquishment of ex-proprietary rights and as such there is a provision in Section 15(2) that within six months immediately preceding or succeeding a transfer which will give rise to ex-proprietary right...
Bhawani Prasad Vs. Ram Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All227
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff whose suit for contribution has been dismissed by the Small Cause Court. One Bhagwan Prasad brought a Suit No. 53 of 1933 against the present plaintiff and defendant Bhawani Prasad and Earn Prasad and got a decree for costs against each. In execution of that decree Bhawani Prasad had to pay the total amount of costs and he now sued the defendant Earn Prasad for a half-share. The Court below has gone into the question of equities and has held that there was a deed of relinquishment by Bhagwati Prasad in favour of Bhawani Prasad and Earn Prasad and Bhagwati Prasad gave notices to Bhawani Prasad and Earn Prasad calling upon them to have the deed of relinquishment avoided as ineffectual and fictitious. In reply to the notice Earn Prasad frankly admitted Bhagwati Prasad's rights in the property and expressed his willingness to deliver up the deed of relinquishment, but Bhawani Prasad denied the right of Bhagwati Prasad, and according...
Diwan Saiyed Ali Rasul Vs. Seth Balkishen and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.21
Sulaiman, C.J.1. The Following question has been referred to the full Bench:Having regard to the provisions of the Ajmer Courts Regulation, 1926 (Regulation IX of 1626), can a reference be made to this Court under Sections 17 and 18 of Regulation I of 1877 on a point of law arising in connection with an application in execution made after Regulation IX of 1926 came into force but in connection 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...
Ataat HusaIn Vs. Mushtaq Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All282
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The appellant in this Court is the defendant judgment-debtor. The plaintiff-respondent, Mushtaq Ali, instituted a suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 2,000 as his share of the dower debt payable to a deceased lady named Bashir Begum. The relationship between the parties to this case and Bashir Begum does not appear from the judgment of the lower Court and the counsel are unable to give it. What probably happened was that the plaintiff was entitled from the defendant to the whole or part of dower debt due to Bashir Begum from the assets of some one whose interests have devolved upon the parties by inheritance. The parties arrived at a compromise which was embodied in a petition presented before the Court. It recited that parties are in possession of Bashir Begum's property in equal shares and went on to provide that, in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim, the zamindari would thenceforward be ow...
Shanker Lal and ors. Vs. Pati Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All293
1. These are two Letters Patent appeals, one by the defendants and one by the plaintiff, against a judgment of the learned Chief Justice in second appeal. The plaintiff had brought a suit for demolition of cattle troughs and thatched sheds standing on two numbers, 265 and 266, which were joint numbers owned by the parties to the suit, who are zamindars, and these numbers are in the abadi of the village. The Court of first instance decreed demolition both of the cattle troughs and of the thatched sheds. The lower appellate Court upheld the decree for demolition of the thatched sheds but held that the cattle troughs may remain. The findings at which the lower appellate Court arrived were that the cattle troughs did not amount to exclusive possession of the plot or part of it, but that the sheds were a step towards an exclusive use of the land and ousting others. It had been stated by the pleader for the defendants: 'The thatched shed on the cattle trough in question rests on beams. There...
Manni Lal Vs. Pahlad Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All141
ORDER1. This is an application by one Manni Lal for revision of an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Banda in a case under para. 17, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The case hag a long history behind it and it is necessary to state the circumstances which led to the present application for revision. The opposite party Pahlad Das sold certain zamindari property to Manni Lal under a sale deed for an ostensible consideration of Rupees 10,000 as far back as 13th December 1923. When Manni Lal applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of names, objection was taken by Pahlad Das to the sale being given effect to. The revenue Court refused mutation and Manni Lal insisted on tha price being refunded to him. Pahlad Das disputed Manni Lal's right to a refund of the price. The dispute between tha parties was referred by them to the arbitration of five persons including one Raja Ram. The agreement was embodied in a formal document dated 22nd March 1930. Manni Lal applied to the Court of th...