Allahabad Court April 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.
Radha Nath Mukerji and ors. Vs. Shaktipado Mukerji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All624
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain properties including immoveables, and for a declaration that the plaintiffs have a right to administer a trust as the duly appointed shebaits, and also for costs and future mesne profits. The prayer in the plaint is in the following terms:That the Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiffs are the shebaits of gods Kaliji and Shivaji installed in premises No. B 6/6 and of Sri Radha Krishnaji installed in premises No. B 7/89 & 89-A and as such are entitled to manage the entire Debutter properties specified in Schedule A to D hereunder, and to receive rents and profits out of the same, and the defendant has no right, title, or interest in the same claim valued at Rs. 11,750 over which Court-fee of Rs. 10 has been paid.(b) That the defendant be ordered to deliver possession to the plaintiff over the property specified in Schedule B, and, if he fails to do so, the plaintiff may be put in possession of...
Raghunandan Sahu and ors. Vs. Badri Teli and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1938All263
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs, and the defendants have filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rul 22, Civil P.C. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandsons of one Ram Bharose Sahu. They brought the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen for the recovery of Rs. 3706 on the basis of a mortgage executed by one Khedu Teli on 3rd November 1913 in favour of Ram Bharose. Defendants 1 to 5 are the descendants of Khedu Teli and the remaining defendants 6 to 15 are subsequent transferees of the mortgaged property. It is not necessary to state in detail the various pleas taken in defence by the several defendants; it is sufficient for the purposes of the appeal and the cross-objections to say that they asserted that the mortgage was not binding on them, and they further pleaded that they had paid a sum of Rs. 300 on 26th December 1922, for which no credit was given by the plaintiffs in the suit. They also said that even if the mortgage be held to be binding on the defendan...
Mt. Rajpali Kunwar Vs. Surju Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All507; 163Ind.Cas.756
ORDERSulaiman, C.J.1. The following questions have been referred to us for answer:(1) Is the agreement dated 20th December 1927 a family settlement?(2) Is the plaintiff entitled to question the said agreement.?2. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an agreement dated 20th December 1927, was null and void against her. She is the sister of Sheo Shobhit Rai, who died about 1926, and on whose death the said agreement was entered into between his widows Mt. Jota Kunwar and Mt. Rumali Kunwar, his step-mother Mt. Rajwanta, another sister's son Narsingh and Kashi Rai, Sarju Rai and Bhagwant Rai, three nearest reversioners at the time. A deed of gift had been executed in 1926 by the senior widow Mt. Jota and the step-mother Mt. Rajwanta in favour of Narsingh, who is alleged by the defendants to have been a sister's son; but that fact was not admitted in the written statement in this case. We know very little about the exact nature of the suit that was brought by K...
Secy. of State Vs. Syed Anwar HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All525
Ganga Nath, J.1. First Appeal No. 20 of 1933 has been heard and disposed of with this appeal as a common point is involved in both the appeals. Both the appeals are against the decisions of the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Allahabad. In this appeal (No. 14 of 1933), house No. 8 situated in Chauk Allahabad was acquired by the Allahabad Improvement Trust in connexion with the Mirganj Open Area Scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation. On reference to the Tribunal it was raised by the Tribunal to Rs. 41,000. In the other case (First Appeal No. 20 of 1933) a house No. 72 in Mirganj was acquired for which the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4,166 as compensation. It was raised to Rs. 7,000 by the Tribunal. During the course of the trial in both the cases one of the assessors, Mr. Ghazanfar-Ullah, was not present. In this case (Appeal No. 14 of 1933), Mr. Ghazanfar-Ullah was absent on 23rd and 26th August 1932. On these dates the cross-examination of the p...
(Shah) Ram Chand Vs. Pt. Parbu Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All595
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for redemption. The plaint as originally framed has been amended, and in the end the plaintiff sought the redemption of certain village which he had bought upon payment to a mortgagee of the sum of Rs. 12,894. The defendants demanded a sum of Rs. 59,500. The lower appellate Court has decreed the suit on condition that the plaintiff pay to the defendants the sum of Rs. 30,000. The property which the plaintiff seeks to redeem, is the village of Matamai in the district of Agra. One Nawal Singh was the owner of this village and six others, namely, 2 Sherpur, 3 Salempur, 4 Phulaichi, 5 Undhi, 6 Matsena and 7 Larhupur Chakarpur. On 6th January 1882, Nawal Singh mortgaged villages 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Bast Ram and Ram Kishan for the sum of Rs. 25,000. On 13th January 1893, Nawal Singh mortgaged villages Nos. 1 and 7 to the ancestor of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 10,000. On 24th June 1893, Nawal Singh mortgaged villages Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to Bast R...
Ram Prasad Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All607
1. This is a first appeal by one of the defendants Ram Prasad against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Agra, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's claim for the enforcement of a certain mortgage. Amongst the original respondents to this appeal was one Brij Behari, a minor, who appeared through his mother Mt. Bangalo. Since the filing of the appeal Brij Behari has been declared to be a major and an application was made by counsel on his behalf to-day praying that he should be transferred from the array of respondents to the array of the appellant. Counsel for the respondents objected but we thought it proper that Brij Behari who is a son of the mortgagor and who, was a minor when the debt was incurred should have an opportunity of contesting before us the findings of the Court below. The appeal, therefore, now stands as the appeal of Ram Prasad and Brij Behari. The suit arises out of a mortgage bond dated 19th February 1921 which was executed in favour of the plaintiff...
Basdeo and ors. Vs. B. Shyama Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All532
Harries, J.1. This a defendants' appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court modifying to some extent a decree of the Court of first instance awarding the plaintiff respondent damages for malicious prosecution. The learned Munsif who heard the case came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to damages and decreed the suit for Rs. 830. The lower appellate Court while upholding the Munsif on the question of liability held that the damages were excessive and reduced them to Rs. 276. The defendants being still dissatisfied and alleging that they were not in law liable to pay to the plaintiff anything by way of damages have preferred this second. appeal to this Court. The facts of the case are simple and can be stated as follows: The defendants made a report to the police alleging that on 25th September 1931 the plaintiff together with others had been concerned in a marpit in which a little girl Mt. Har Pyari had sustained injuries from which she died. As a result of th...
ibney Hasan Vs. Gulkandi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All611
1. This is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Budaun decreeing the plaintiff's claim. It appears that since the case was decided in the Court below both the plaintiff and defendant have died and they are now represented by their heirs. The plaintiff's claim was upon two mortgages, dated 3rd February 1919 and 23rd July 1924 respectively. The claim was originally against three defendants, namely the executant Maulvi Abul Hasnain, Mohammad Baza defendant 1, his wife Mt. Khurshed Jahan Begam defendant 3 and the present appellant Maulvi Ibne Hasan who was impleaded as a subsequent transferee of a part of the property mortgaged. The suit was originally decreed against all three defendants, but this decree, in so far as it concerned the present appellant, was ex parte. Later the present appellant applied to have the decree, in so far as it affected him, set aside and this was ordered. Upon the matter coming up for hearing a decree was eventually passed a...
Charan Singh Vs. Diwan Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All706; 165Ind.Cas.266
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondents for their share of profits for the years 1333F to 1338F. The plaintiffs' case was that they and the defendant were co-sharers of half and half in the tenancy described in the plaint and the defendant had been in possession over the whole of it and consequently they (the plaintiffs) were entitled to recover Rs. 3,682-2-0 for principal and Rs. 1,399-2-1 for interest. The defendant contended that the claim was time-barred and plaintiff was not entitled to interest. The learned Subordinate Judge found against the defendant and decreed the suit. The defendant has come here in appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the plaintiffs' share is not half, but is only a quarter. There was a litigation between the parties, and the Board of Revenue decided in that litigation that the parties' share in the tenancy in dispute was half and half. Karan Singh who was also entitled...
(Goshain) Mahesher Gir Vs. (Sheikh)rahmat Ullah and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All710; 165Ind.Cas.452
1. This is a first appeal from a decision, dated 17th October 1932, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, instituted the suit concerned for a declaration that the property mortgaged by two deeds, dated respectively 23rd July 1923, and 27th August 1930, is the property of a certain ' math ' at Mirzapur, known as the 'Math Brij Raj Katra.' These deeds were executed by Mahant Kamta Gir, who is defendant 14 in the suit. The plaintiff claims that in 1918 the Mahant initiated him as a disciple, and nominated him as his successor. Two or three years before the institution of the suit, the plaintiff, it is alleged, was entrusted with the entire management of the property of the 'math' and has accordingly a right to protect that property. Defendants 1 to 6, according to the plaint, instituted a suit on 25th January 1932, on the basis of the above two mortgage-deeds, against Mahant Kamta Gir, and the plaintiff asked unsuccessfully to be made...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »