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.
Pt. Amba Shankar Vs. Mt. Seoti
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All280
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision directed against an order, passed by the learned District Judge of Agra, purporting to reject the applicant's appeal to his Court in circumstances which are as. follows:2. The applicant instituted a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of the Subordinate' Judge, Agra. The suit was dismissed on the merits, and the applicant became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 205 to the-Government under Order 33, Rule 11, Civil P.C. The sum included the court-fee-payable on the plaint and some other costs said to have been incurred by the Government, probably, in opposing the-application for leave to sue as a pauper. He preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, and applied for leave to appeal as a pauper. His applications was dismissed and time was given to him for payment of the court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The applicant paid the full court-fee due on appeal, and his appeal was registered. Three months later the Dis...
Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshman Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All321
1. This is a plaintiff's first appeal arising out of a suit for possession and declaration. The plaintiff asked for the following reliefs : (a) A decree awarding joint possession over the plots mentioned in list (C) in this plaint, to the extent of a 14 anna share, may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants first party.... (b) A decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to realize the 'tehbazari' dues of the market held on a part of the plots mentioned in list (B) of this plaint situate in Mauza Ponharia, to the extent of a 14 anna share. The facts giving rise to this litigation between the parties can briefly be stated as follows : Upto year 1911, the entire Village Ponhariya tappa Matkopa, was held by a Thakur family, the pedigree of which is given in the plaint at p. 13. This family is now represented by the defendants-second set.2. The entire village was held by the members of this family as ...
Nawal Kishore Agarwala Vs. Municipal Board and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All365
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for (a) a declaration that the election of 16 members of the Municipal Board of Gorakhpur was illegal and accordingly the Board is not legally and validly constituted; (b) an injunction restraining the Board from acting as such; and (c) refund of Rs. 50 which had been deposited as security by the plaintiff who was a candidate at the election. The first Court decreed the claim for refund of the amount of security, but dismissed the rest of the claim; its finding was that there was some irregularity or illegality committed in the preparation of the electoral rolls. On appeal the learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the suit does not lie in the civil Court at all, and has accordingly dismissed it.2. It cannot be disputed that where there is any special or local law in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred by any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law, nothing in the Code of of Civil Proce...
Soudagar Vs. L. Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All260
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court reversing the decree of the Court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 830 as being due for advances of money made by him to the defendant. It appears that on 2nd September 1929 the defendant acknowledged that there was a balance of Rs. 546 due from him to the plaintiff. It was the defendant's case that no sum had been paid from 2nd September 1929 on account of the debt and that no acknowledgment of the debt had ever been given and that being so a suit on 3rd May 1933 was time-barred. It was the plaintiff's case that two payments on account had been made one of Rs. 39 on 1st March 1930 and one of Rs. 40 on 30th May 1930. A payment on 1st March 1930 would not save this case as the suit was brought more than three years after that date. However, a payment of Rs. 40 on 30th May 1930 could save limitation. Though an actual payment of money ...
Ram Dayal and ors. Vs. Mukat Manohar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All317
1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against concurring decrees the two lower Courts decreeing redemption in favour of the plaintiff of a certain usufructuary mortgage and under Order 34, Rule 9 a payment by the defendants to the plaintiffs of Rs. 137 with interest. The mortgage in question was executed on 24th April 1917 by Umrao Singh in favour of the plaintiffs. The principal sum secured under the mortgage was Rs. 4,500 and the plaint states that the mortgage deed in question is a possessory mortgage deed and the profits arising from the mortgaged property have been agreed to be set off against the interest on the mortgage money. In Paras. 4 and 5 it was alleged that most of the items entered in the mortgage deed were fictitious and that for that reason the mortgagees had only paid Rs. 2,136-3-6 of the mortgage money, and in Para. 6:Although the mortgagees did not pay the entire mortgage money, yet they all along realised the profits arising from the mortgaged property.2. Th...
Joti Prasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All361
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur that, a fine of Rs. 4 inflicted upon Jyoti Prasad by a Bench of Honorary Magistrates under Section 185, Municipal Act, should be set aside. Joti Prasad is alleged to have made two doorways in his house opening upon a court-yard which was common to him and Munni Lal. The learned Judge has suggested that the opening of a doorway is not a material alteration within the meaning of Section 178, Municipalities Act. I think whether it is or is not is a question of fact because the opening of a very large doorway or something of that kind might prejudicially affect the support or safety of a building, but in the present case I agree with him that there is no reason for thinking that the opening of these doors was a matter with which the Municipal Board was really concerned. From the judgment of the Honorary Magistrates it appears that they were affected by the fact or allegation that these doorways invaded the pr...
Khima Nand and anr. Vs. Emperor Through Prem Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.622
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order by the District Magistrate of Almora directing further inquiry into a case in which the accused were discharged. The allegation against the accused was that they had been guilty of defamation in that they had written on a postcard to the complainant that a notice of enhancement of rent, which he had issued to them was due to the fact that they had refused to give false evidence for him. The Magistrate discharged the accused because he held that there was no offence of defamation where the defamatory statement was made in a communication addressed to the person defamed. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that this rule did not apply to the present case because the defamatory statement was written upon a post-card. It is argued in revision that the learned District Magistrate was wrong because it has been held in the case of Queen Empress v. Taki Husain 7 A. 205, that in no case can a defamatory sta...
Municipal Board Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All298
1. This is an appeal by the defendant Municipal Board of Moradabad arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for a perpetual injunction against it restraining the defendant from demolishing certain constructions made on the east side of the plaintiff's shop adjoining a public road. The Municipal Board had issued notices under Sections 186 and 211, U.P. Municipalities Act (Act 2 of 1916) for the demolition of these constructions. The present suit was accordingly instituted by the plaintiff to prevent the Board from getting them demolished in pursuance of the said notices. The Board inter alia pleaded that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The trial Court held that there were various fatal objections to the suit and it was not maintainable, and accordingly the Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Judge has reversed the decree. His opinion is that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature when the Municipal Board has acte...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Har Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All658
ORDER1. This is an application in revision against an order of the civil Judge of Bijnor disallowing an application for stay of execution. One Har Prasad sued Mt. Bismilla and others on foot of a mortgage (Suit No. 52 of 1929). We are informed that the mortgaged property consisted in shops and houses. A puisne mortgagee, by name Ghandi Prasad, was impleaded as a defendant to the suit. A preliminary decree was obtained on 29th May 1929 and the final decree was passed on 3rd August 1931. That decree is now under execution.2. The facts as stated before us are as follows : Ghandi Prasad in execution of his own decree purchased on 2nd March 1932 a portion of the mortgaged property. Another portion of it was purchased by one Abdul Wahab. These two persons thus replaced the original mortgagors. On 30th August 1932 Abdul Wahab sold his share to Ghandi Prasad and on 26th August 1935 Chandi Prasad sold the whole property to Jwala Prasad, the applicant in the present case. The 2nd September 1935 ...
Hingu Lal Vs. Sarju Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All363; 169Ind.Cas.135
Bajpai J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff. Ho brought a suit for that recovery of a sum of Rs. 200 which he said he had deposited with the defendant and added to that a claim that the defendant may be ordered to render the entire account to the plaintiff in respect of the laser's business carried on in shellac by the defendant, and on rendition of amount a further decree for that amount which may be found due to the plaintiff by the defendant may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff as developed in the plaint and in the Court below was that the sum of Rs, 200 was deposited with the defendant on June 10, 1928, and shortly after the plaintiff in structed that defendant to purchase and sell shellac on behalf of the plaintiff keeping Rs. 200 as a sort of margin money. The defence was that the defendant was never the agent of the plaintiff and that Rs. 200 were never deposited by the plaintiff in the defendant's shop. It was said that the aforementioned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »