Allahabad Court December 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.
Govind Prasad Vs. Yad Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.634
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in revision preferred by a decree-holder against an order of the Execution Court directing Rs. 120 to be paid to a custodian (supurddar) Yad Ram. It appears that the plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of money and got an attachment before judgment. The defendant's property which consisted of furniture was attached and put in charge and custody of the respondent Yad Ram as the supurddar. He kept the furniture in a room. The bailiff reported that in view of the locality the room in which the furniture was kept was fairly worth Rs. 5 a month. The Court has ordered that the decree holder must pay to the custodian remuneration at the rate of Rs. 5 per month. It is contended before us that the order of the Court below was passed without any jurisdiction.2. Order XXI, Rule 122, which applies to custody of movable property other than live stock while under attachment, lays down that the attaching officer shall, subject to approval by the Court, m...
BhadaIn Vs. Gokul Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All346
ORDER1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision from an order returning his plaint for presentation to the revenue Court in a suit for recovery of Rs. 110 realised from the plaintiff by the revenue authorities on account of the revenue said to have been due from the defendants. The defendants' father had granted a lease for 20 years to the plaintiff. The lease related to specific plots and not to a fractional share in the village. Under the terms of the lease the lessor was liable to pay Government revenue, and it was no part of the lessee's duty to pay it. There was in fact a specific provision that if the lessee were called upon to pay the Government revenue, then he would be entitled to recover the amount from the lessor with interest. The present claim is for Rs. 100 paid as such revenue, and Rs. 10 due as interest thereon. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court. He has, however, not quote...
Nirmal Singh Vs. Zamir UddIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All368
1. This is a second appeal brought by Nirmal Singh, defendant. The facts are as follows : Plaintiffs, Nathu and Mt. Nauhani, brought a suit against Mt. Basti Begum and other defendants and also against Nirmal Singh as pro forma defendant. Mt. Basti Begum, etc., were sued for arrears of rent by the plaintiffs who claimed that those defendants were the tenants of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs set up the title of being maqruqadars of arazi mawruqa and Mt. Basti Begum claimed that she was the owner of the land in question. The suit was brought for arrears of rent in the Court of the Tahsildar and an issue was referred to the civil Court : 'Have the defendants any proprietary rights in the land in dispute?' The Munsif held that the proprietary rights of Mt. Basti Begum were proved by judgments between the parties of the year 1896, that is between the predecessor of the plaintiffs, who was Nirmal Singh, the present appellant, on the one hand, and Mt. Basti Begum on the other. Certain receip...
Babu Kunj Behari Lal Vs. Mt. Ketki Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All395
ORDER1. This is a civil revision under the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The only question is whether the decree-holder opposite party by bringing a suit asking for a simple money decree can obviate any disadvantage which arises from the Agriculturists' Relief Act, Schedule 3, by which the 'rate of interest is to be for a lower rate on a secured loan than on an unsecured loan. The mortgage deed in suit is dated 26th April 1928 and it provided for 1 per cent, compound interest p.m. The plaintiff brought her suit and obtained a simple money decree on 15th February 1934. The Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force on 3rd April 1935. The debtor applied to the Court under Section 30 and asked for a reduction in the rate of interest from 1st January 1930. The Court below has held that the loan should not be treated as a secured loan but as an unsecured loan. This is the sole question before us, whether the loan can be treated as an unsecured loan. Learned Counsel for the decree-holder argue...
Chandra Sarup and anr. Vs. Kanhiaiya Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All401
1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of a suit for possession, mesne profits and for rectification of a deed. The facts of the case are as follows :Chandra Sarup and Joti Prasad, defendants, are minors and both of them have certificated guardians appointed by the District Court. In Suit No. 37 of 1921, a decree on the basis of a mortgage deed was passed against them. In that deed a 10 biswa zamindari share in mahal Chain Sukh, 'patti' Rattan Kunwar, entered in khewat as holding No. 2 in mauza Qayampur Bahiria had been mortgaged but the decree was passed in respect of only 8 biswa 12 biswansi and 13 kachwansi share out of the above-mentioned share. That decree was made absolute and was put in execution. The parties to the suit entered into a compromise on 1st March 1929, and it was agreed that the 8 biswa 12 biswansi and 13 kachwansi share should be sold by the defendants to' the plaintiff in consideration of a sum of Rs. 33,000. Rs. 23,000 went towards the satisfaction of ...
Mata Prasad Vs. Tika Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All261
1. This is a first appeal from order brought by a defendant against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs and defendant are both tenants in a certain village, mauza. Birsingnpur, and the question is whether-the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. The plaint set out in para. 1 that the father of the plaintiffs-took a lease from the zamindars of the village for planting a grove, on 7th October 1911, of two plots 138/2 and 138/4 in, patti No. 1, and in para. 2 it was set out that the defendant was an occupancy tenant of plots Nos. 134 and 137. The patties in which defendant's plots are situated were not specified in the plaint as in the written statement, but by affidavit it has been stated that plot No. 134 is in patti No. 2 and plot No. 137 is in four patties, Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. It is further set out in the affidavits that the zammdars of patti No. 1 are Tribeni Sahai and Gomti Sahai and the zamindar of patti No. 2 is Mt. Bari, widow of Gokul...
Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and ors. Vs. Nazir Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All334
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiff-appellants Mohammad Ibrahim Khan and others brought this suit against the defendant, respondents Nazir Ahmad and others to recover a sum of Rs. 135-10-0 as damages for the wrongful removal of crops from a holding from which the defendants had been ordered to be ejected. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the crops in question could be cut and removed by the defendants and that being so, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim-It is against that decision that this present appeal has been preferred.2. The defendants who had been tenants' of the plaintiffs had failed to pay the rent due for their holding for some time and consequently the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the revenue Court for arrears of; rent and had obtained a decree for the same. Later, the plaintiffs had taken procee...
Harindra Nath Mukerji Vs. B. Bhola Nath Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All407
1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares rejecting an application filed by Harindra Nath Mukerji appellant for setting aside an auction sale. The application was in terms an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. and was based on the allegation that there was material irregularity in conducting the sale and that the applicant sustained substantial injury by reason of that irregularity. It was further alleged in the application that:The acceptance of the bid of the decree-holder offered in Court is illegal and irregular and is not a sale under the Code.2. Stripped of all unnecessary details the facts that culminated in the application for setting aside the sale are as follows : Harindra Nath Mukerji executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of Bhola Nath. The property mortgaged was house property. Thereafter Harindra Nath Mukerji sold a portion of the mortgaged property to one Mahabir Awasthi. Bhola Nath brought a suit for sale ...
Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and ors. Vs. Nazir Ahmad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.269
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiff appellants Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others brought this suit against the defendant-respondents Nazir Ahmad and others to recover a sum of Rs. 135-10-0 as damages for the wrongful reproval of crops from a holding from which the defendants had been ordered to be ejected. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the crops in question could be cut and removed by the defendants and that being so, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. It is against that decision that this present appeal has been preferred.2. The defendants who had been tenants of the plaintiffs had failed to pay the rent due for their holding for some time and consequently the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the Revenue Court for arrears of rent and had obtained a decree for the same. Later, the plaintiffs had taken proceed...
Bhagwat Misir Vs. Mt. Sheokali Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All290
1. This is a second appeal by one of the defendants, Bhagwat Misir against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts in favour of the plaintiffs. The family pedigree is given on p. 10. The plaintiff 1 is Mt. Sheokali Kuar, the daughter of Bindadin, who was the last male owner of the property in dispute, and plaintiff 2, Ram Dutt Misir, is the son of plaintiff 1. The plaint sets out that the deceased Bindadin Misir was a resident of mauza Lohra in Azamgarh district, which is in the province of Agra, under this High Court, and he died leaving the property in the plaint which consists of pukhtadari shares paying revenue in the village of Daudpur and qabzadari property paying revenue in the village of Bhagwanpur Manjharia. Both these villages are situated in Pargana Birhar, in the district of Fyzabad, in the province of Oudh, which is not under the jurisdiction of this High Court. The third item of property in the plaint consists of an ahata or enclosure in mauza Lohra in Azamgarh distric...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »