Allahabad Court February 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.
Rajdhari Lal and ors. Vs. Bishunath Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All867
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment brought by the zamindars against the defendants who were ejected from their holdings. The claim is for the ejectment of the defendants from the house which they occupy on the a badi site. The trial Court held that the house was appurtenant to the holding and the defendants were liable to ejectment from the house and land in dispute. On appeal the learned Judge came to a contrary conclusion. He has remarked that the plaintiff examined himself only and produced no other witnesses and that there was no sufficient evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove that the defendant's ancestors were the tenants when they erected the house in dispute. The plaintiffs led no evidence to show when the house had been actually built or the person who had built it and whether he was a tenant at the time or not. The learned Judge then noted a dictum in Nabi Mohammad v. Bhagwat Prasad Shukul 1931 ALJ 649 and preferred to follow the late...
Dalpat Rai Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All469; 163Ind.Cas.609
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is an application in criminal revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly dismissing an appeal from the order of the District Magistrate of Bareilly who had made a criminal complaint under Section 182, I.P.C., against the applicant Dalpat Rai for his prosecution under the provisions of Section 199(1)(a), Criminal P.C. The points which are urged in the application of revision are that the application made by Dalpat Rai to the District Magistrate on 18th July 1935 amounted to a criminal complaint within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code and disclosed an offence and that the District Magistrate therefore should have taken the deposition of the complainant on oath and that because he did not do so, therefore as laid down in Emperor v. Bhagwan Das 1935 ALJ 1067, the order of the Magistrate directing a complaint to be made against the applicant was without jurisdiction. The question is whether the application of Dalpat Rai was or was n...
Ram Autar Sahu and ors. Vs. B. Bate Krishna and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All479; 163Ind.Cas.926
Harries, J.1. This is an application by Ram Autar, Murlidhar and Bhagwan Das for the revision of an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares impleading them in the array of judgment-debtors. The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows: It appears that one Gopal Das and his sons executed a mortgage in favour of Maksudan Das, the security being a house in Benares and certain Zamindari property situate in Jaunpur. In due course Maksudan Das brought a suit upon this mortgage against the mortgagors, and on 27th August 1927 he obtained a decree against Gopal Das and his sons. At some time during the pendency of this mortgage suit the mortgagors Gopal Das and his sons executed a simple mortgage of the Zamindari property in favour of the applicants Ram Autar and Murlidhar, Maksudan Das never impleaded Ram Autar and Murlidhar in his suit, which was then proceeding, presumably, because the fact of the subsequent mortgage was never brought to his knowledge. Subsequen...
Makkhan Lal Vs. Mt. Bhagwana Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All655
ORDER1. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor, Makkhan Lal, against the order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, for the execution of a decree by arrest of the applicant. The opposite party, Mt. Bhagwana Kuer, had a decree against the applicant. She applied for execution on 19th April 1932. The decree was transferred for execution against the zamindari property to the Court of the West Munsif, Allahabad, on 20th May 1932, and the property was attached on 26th May 1932. The sale of the property has been stayed under the orders of the Government. On 14th February 1935 the opposite party applied to the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, for execution by arrest of the applicant judgment-editor. On 8th March 1935, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, ordered the execution to proceed by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. Against this order the judgment-debtor has come here in revision.2. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that it was no...
Nageshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Sarup Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All411; 163Ind.Cas.234
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by Nageshwar Prasad Singh against the order of the learned District Judge, Moradabad, passed under Section 5 Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (14 of 1920). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that no revision lies under Section 115, Civil P.C. This point has been concluded by the case reported in (1929) 27 A L J 91l (1). So there is no force in the objection' of the opposite party.2. The next point for consideration is whether the case fell under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act. It is conceded by the applicant that the trust in question is a mixed trust partly for a public and charitable purpose and partly for a private purpose. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act does not apply to such a trust. According to him it applies only to a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. He relied on...
Makkhan Lal Vs. Musammat Bhagwana Kuer
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1936
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.51
1. This is an application in revision by the judgment-debtor, Makkhan Lal, against the order of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad, for the execution of a decree by arrest of the applicant. The opposite party, Musammat Bhagwana Kuer, had a decree against the applicant. She applied for execution on April 19, 1932. The decree was transferred for execution against the zemindari property to the Court of the West Munsif, Allahabad, on May 20, 1932, and the property was attached on May 26, 1932. The sale of the property has been stayed under the orders of the Government. On February 14, 1935, the opposite party applied to the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, for execution by arrest of the applicant, judgment-debtor on March 8,1935, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, ordered the execution to proceed by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. Against this order the judgment-debtor has come here in revision.2. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that it was not per...
Nandu Mal Vs. Panna Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All436; 163Ind.Cas.823
1. This is a judgment-debtor's objection against an order of the lower Court in execution. The decree-holder made an application asking that a garden, area 13 bighas 3 biswas of land, containing all sorts of fruit-bearing and timber trees with flower beds and house, should be sold in auction sale in execution of his decree. There was Government notification in the Gazette, dated 26th March 1932, which stated that agricultural land as defined by the Agra Tenancy Act should be sold only through the Collector and the sale of such property has been stayed. The present application is for sale through the civil Court amin. The question before us is whether the area in question can be considered agricultural land or not. The Court below has considered that it is not a grove but that it comes under the definition of 'garden.' Unfortunately the Court below has applied an erroneous criterion to draw the distinction between a garden and a grove. The Court considered that the distinction was wheth...
Sobha Ram Vs. Tika Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All454; 163Ind.Cas.974
Bennet, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decree of a learned single Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a suit for damages against the defendant on the ground that the defendant had enticed away the wife of the plaintiff while the plaintiff was at Calcutta. The home of the plaintiff and of the defendant is in a village in tahsil Bah of Agra District, and the plaintiff alleged that his wife had been taken away by the defendant from that village to another village under the pretext that she would be carried away to Calcutta, and had been locked up in the house of the defendant, and the defendant had attempted to have sexual intercourse with her, and that an alarm being raised the defendant ran away. The plaintiff then came from Calcutta. The defence was a denial that the defendant had taken any part in the matter. The plaintiff in the first instance went to the criminal Court under Section 498, I.P.C., and the defendant was convicted and sentenc...
Nagesar Ram Vs. Rajnet Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All639
1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The opposite party holds a simple money decree against Nagesar Ram judgment-debtor, and has put that decree into execution. The appellant holds a mortgage decree against the opposite party. The only question for determination in this case is whether a mortgage decree can be set off against a simple money decree obtained by the opposite party against the appellant. Rule 18, Order 21, Civil P.C., enacts that where application is made to a Court for the execution of cross-decrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time by such Court, then (a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction shall be entered upon both decrees, and (b) if the two sums are unequal execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the smaller ...
Mt. Ram Kailash Kunwari Vs. Ishwari Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All475; 163Ind.Cas.754
1. This is an application asking for revision of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur who dismissed an application for leave to sue as a pauper upon the ground that the application was not in proper form and that it was not presented by the applicant in person or by a properly authorised agent on her behalf. The alleged defects in the application were that the application was not in the form of a plaint in accordance with the provisions of Order 33, Rule 2, Civil P.C., and that it was not properly verified as a plaint should be verified because there was no verification in respect of the paragraphs of the plaint according to their numbers. The application was presented on behalf of the applicant who is a pardanashin lady by her husband. This man had in his possession at the time a special power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the applicant.2. The Court admitted the application in the first instance on the report of its officer that the application ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »