Allahabad Court March 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.
Sheo Sahai Vs. Tilok Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All553
Niamat Ullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession of a house. Both the lower Courts dismissed it, and the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal. The house in dispute lies in village Hura, district Shahjahanpur. The plaintiff's father was a 'patwari' of village Hura, and had also an occupancy holding in that village. The present case relates to his residential house. The plaintiff himself has been a patwari in a village in the adjoining district of Kheri. The house was in a dilapidated condition for sometime. One 'sahdari' was, however, in existence. It fell down in July 1932. The plaintiff's case is that he attempted to rebuild the house in Pus following, i.e. December 1932, but the defendants, who are the zamindars of the village, prevented him from doing so. He then brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal on 9th January 1933. The defence was that the plaintiff was the occupier of the house only as a 'riaya' and that he abandoned it; the...
imam Baksh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All190
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Imam Baksh, who has been convicted by a Magistrate, First Class, Shahjahanpur, under Section 62, Stamp Act, and fined Rs. 150. The facts which led to the prosecution of the applicant are as follows : The applicant Imam Baksh was an agent of a firm styled Bakhshi & Co., of Lucknow, who were themselves agents of Allenbury & Co. Bahadur Ali Khan negotiated with Imam Bakhsh for the purchase of a Chevrolet lorry. It was agreed that Imam Baksh would take two old lorries belonging to Bahadur Ali Khan, for Rs. 2,000, to be set off against the price of Rs. 4,200 payable by Bahadur Ali Khan to Imam Bakhsh for the new Chevrolet lorry purchased by the former. Two documents were executed on 4th May 1934, one by Bahadur Ali Khan and the other by Imam Bakhsh. Each is described as 'receipt' and bears a stamp of one anna. The one executed by Bahadur Ali Khan recites that he purchased a Chevrolet lorry from Bakshi & Co. for Rs. 4,200, giv...
Wali Mohammad and ors. Vs. Batuk and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All517; 163Ind.Cas.843
Harries, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court modifying a decree of the Court of first instance. The plaintiff claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the right of light and air which he alleged he enjoyed through a window in his premises which overlooked the defendants' land and premises. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants had planted trees and shrubs which tended to block his window and had also placed a screen in front of it which completely shut out the light and air which the plaintiff had previously enjoyed. The learned Munsif who heard the case ordered the removal of most of the obstructions complained of including the screen which was blocking the window, but on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge whilst confirming most of the Munsif's findings came to the conclusion that an injunction compelling the defendants to remove the screen was not justified upon the evidence. He held that as long as th...
Kunwar Inderjit Singh Vs. Gir Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All671
1. This is a first appeal brought by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate' Judge of Meerut on the finding of a Revenue Court. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant formed a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff has brought a suit for a decree that he should have absolute possession of certain plots in mauza Harora as his sir. The defendant on the other hand contends that these plots are the ex-proprietary tenure of the defendant. The father and the son had this zamindari property, and in 1912 certain trustees were appointed to manage the whole of the joint family estate. The evidence of the patwari shows that the trustees were entered in the papers in addition to the name of the father, and the evidence leaves no doubt that the trustees, one of whom was the father, were managing the whole of the joint family property as trustees for the joint family. In Act 3 of 1926, Section 4, Sub-section (d) it is provided that the ...
imam Bakhsh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1936
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.504
Niamat Ullah, J.1. This is an application for revision by one Imam Bakhsh, who has been convicted by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Shahjahanpur, under Section 62, Stamp Act, and fined Rs. 150. The facts which led to the prosecution of the applicant are as follows:2. The applicant Imam Bakhsh was an agent of a firm styled Bakhshi & Co. of Lucknow, who were themselves agents of Allenbury & Co. Bahadur Ali Khan negotiated with Imam Bakhsh for the purchase of a Cheverolet lorry. It was agreed that Imam Bakhsh would take two old lorries belonging to Bahadur Ali Khan, for Rs. 2,000 to be set off against the price of Rs. 4,200 payable by Bahadur Ali Khan to Imam Bakhsh for the new Cheverolet lorry purchased by the former. Two documents were executed on May 4, 1934, one by Bahadur Ali Khan and the other by Imam Bakhsh. Each is described as ''receipt and bears a stamp of one anna. The one executed by Bahadur Ali Khan recites that he purchased a Cheverolet lorry from Bakhshi & Co. for Rs. 4,200, givi...
Bhawani Prasad and ors. Vs. Bahal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All492; 163Ind.Cas.767
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for profits. The plaintiffs have lost in all the Courts. They claimed to be entitled to the profits of the new khewat in the ratio which 1 bigha 5 biswas would bear to the entire area in that khewat. The facts found are that the plaintiffs had fractional shares in three plots, Nos. 1848, 1849 and 3156/1, constituting the old khewat 145/2. Owing to a re-union of khewats, instead of Nos. 145/1 and 145/2 we now have only khewat No. 145; but it consists of plots which were compromised in No. 145/2, in which the plaintiffs had shares as well as plots in the other subdivision which belonged to the defendants. The new khewat merely shows that the plaintiffs own 1 bigha 5 biswas in khewat No. 145. It nowhere shows that they owned an undivided fractional share in the entire khewat represented by the fraction 1 bigha 5 biswas divided by the total area of that khewat. In the Courts below the parties led evidence as to the extent ...
Anandi Lal and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All495; 163Ind.Cas.480
ORDER1. This is an application of Lala Ram Swarup and others in which the applicant prays the Court to appoint a receiver of certain mortgaged properties.2. On 30th October 1922 a mortgage-deed was executed by one Ganga Ram who was the manager of a joint Hindu family and one Piare Lal in favour of the applicant's father. The sum advanced to the mortgagor was Rs. 1,05,000. This sum was advanced at the rate of 9 annas per mensem compoundable every six months. The prescribed term of the mortgage was three years, that is the money was repayable to the mortgagee on 30th October 1925. The money was not repaid in 1925 and the payment of interest appears to have been very irregular. In 1933 the plaintiffs filed a suit in which they claimed Rs. 1,49,264 plus interest. On 8th September 1934 a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1,72,527. Against this decree the defendants to the suit have preferred a first appeal in this Court. The applicants have since obt...
Kamal Devi Vs. Dr. C. Khudadad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All522; 163Ind.Cas.872
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff against a decree which has dismissed part of her claim for arrears of rent. The plaintiff brought her suit against the defendant on two leases, one dated 1st March 1922, and the other dated 2nd June 1926, which was the renewal of an earlier lease. The lease of 1926 provides for instalments of rent at Rs. 400 per annum payable half-yearly in the first week of June and in the first week of December each year, and the lease of 1922 provides for annual rent of Rs. 300 in similar instalments. The defendant pleaded set-off, and various items of set-off have been allowed by the Court below. In grounds Nos. 3 and 5 the legality of allowing a set-off has been contested by the appellant plaintiff. The argument for the appellant is that under Order 8, Rule 6(1), a set-off is provided for as follows:Where in a suit for the recovery of money the defendant claims to set-off against the plaintiff's demand any ascertained sum of money legally recover...
Tulshi Ram Vs. Seth Bindaban Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.722
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the defendant minor from an order setting aside an award and directing that the suit should proceed. A preliminary, objection is taken on behalf of the plaintiff that no revision lies. The plaintiff had brought a suit for a declaration that he was the sole heir of his deceased father Brij Mohan Lal and was exclusively entitled to certain Government securities left by him, because his two brothers and a nephew were separate from the deceased father. He impleaded his brothers and nephew. The two brothers did not file any written statement and did not appear to contest the claim. The claim was resisted exclusively by the applicant, Tulshi Ram, not on the ground that the family was joint and the other two brothers Badri and Nathi Lal were entitled to a share, but that although Brij Mohan Lal was the sole owner of these properties he had under a will left the entire estate to Tulshi Ram. Both the plaintiff and the contesting d...
Adit Singh Vs. Rai Bindayal Sahu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All456; 163Ind.Cas.762
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. He brought a suit for possession of certain properties entered at the foot of the plaint and for damages. He impleaded as defendants to the suit defendants first party who it was alleged were in possession of the property in dispute, and defendants' second party who it was alleged had made a mortgage of the property in dispute which mortgage had been sued upon, and in execution of a decree for sale passed on the basis of the said mortgage against the said defendants' second party, the defendants' first party had obtained possession of the property in suit. He also impleaded as defendants, defendants' third party who, it was said, were jointly interested with the plaintiff in the property in dispute, but as they were absent they could not be joined as plaintiffs but were made pro forma defendants. The plaintiff's suit has been decreed by the Courts below with respect to certain portion of the plaint property but was dismissed in respect o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »