Allahabad Court May 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.
Mt. Kulsoomun Nissa and anr. Vs. Noor Mohammad Alias Sultan Haider and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All666
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought in the revenue Court for arrears of Government revenue against defendant 1 on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the assignee of the assignee of the Government revenue and were entitled to recover the amount. Originally defendant 2, who was the heir of the original assignee of the Government revenue, had not been impleaded, but later, on his own application, he was made a party to the suit. The fact that the plaintiffs are the representatives of the original assignee of the Government revenue does not appear to have been seriously disputed. There was in any case no specific denial in the written statements. But it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. Defendant 1 further pleaded that he had in good faith made the payment of the Government revenue to defendant 2, Hakim Shyam Surdar Lal, while the latter denied the plaintiff's right to recover the amount, and also pleaded that the special Gove...
Shikar Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All700; 165Ind.Cas.231
Thom, J.1. This is an appeal by a plaintiff who brought a claim for the recovery of a certain amount paid by him on account of earnest money to defendants 1 and 2. The transaction that culminated in the suit was with respect to certain grain-pits in the town of Deoband. It is common ground that Asa Ram, defendant 3, filled two grain-pits and sold the same by means of two slips called langots in the market. These slips passed through the hands of various successive purchasers and ultimately defendants 1 and 2 became the purchasers of the same. These defendants sold the two slips to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was according to the slips entitled to actual delivery of the pits on a certain date. The plaintiff however could not get delivery of the pits and, therefore, brought the suit giving rise to the present appeal for recovery of the earnest money paid by him to defendants 1 and 2. Asa Ram who filled the grain in the pits was also arrayed as defendant 3 in the suit. Defendants 1 and 2...
Tulsi Misir Vs. Bindeshri Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All593
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is an appeal preferred by a surety in an execution proceeding. The decree-holder had obtained an ex parte decree against the judgment-debtor, Ram Prasad, who applied for getting the decree set aside under Section 17(1), Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The value of the subject matter in dispute was more than Rs. 500. It was necessary for the applicant to give security to the satisfaction of the Court. The present appellant, Tulsi Misir stood surety for the judgment-debtor and executed a security bond undertaking to pay the amount of the decree, if not otherwise realised. The ex parte decree was actually set aside and the suit was restored to its original number. Thereafter it was heard on the merits and resulted in a decree in favour of the respondent and against the judgment-debtor. Of course there was no decree passed against the surety. The decree-holder has not sought to execute the decree against the surety for the amount due from the judgment-debtor. The l...
Bhajan Singh Vs. Prem NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All619
1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to set aside an alleged ex parte decree passed against the defendant. The case came up for hearing on 22nd January 1934 when it was adjourned till 19th February 1934. The record kept by the Court below is most confusing. According to the note made by the Judge in English the case was adjourned at the instance of both the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the entry made in the order-sheet the case was adjourned at the request of the plaintiff, while according to paper No. 420, the case was adjourned on a statement having been made by the defendant's counsel that there was a prospect of a compromise, and this was countersigned by the plaintiff's counsel also.2. It may therefore be taken that the case was adjourned with the consent of both the parties. On 19th February 1934, some time early in the day, a list of witnesses, signed by the defendant's counsel, was filed as required by the proviso to Order 16, Rule 1, under which no party is...
Rameshwar Nath Vs. Mt. Aftab Begam and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All803; 166Ind.Cas.56
1. This is a defendant's first appeal against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit. The plaintiff's suit was for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of certain property detailed in Schedule A of the plaint and that the property detailed in Schedule B of the plaint was property belonging to her which she had made waqf and that both the properties were not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a certain decree held by defendant 1 against defendant 2. Plaintiff 1, Mt. Aftab Begam, was the second wife of defendant 2. According to her the amount of dower due to her upon her marriage to defendant 2 had been fixed at Rs. 30,000 and such dower was declared to be prompt It was her case that nothing had been paid in discharge of this liability until 8th March 1919 when her husband, defendant 2, in part satisfaction of this prompt dower debt due to his wife, transferred the property detailed in Schedule A to her. The property transferred was stated ...
Emperor Vs. Ambika Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All693; 165Ind.Cas.223
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad that the conviction of Ambika Prasad under Section 307, United Provinces Municipalities Act 1916, should be set aside. It is necessary in order to understand the matter to set forth certain facts. Ambika Prasad made an application to the Municipality on 27th April 1931 that he should be allowed to erect a certain building. He received no reply for three months and then issued a registered notice to the Board under the provisions of Section 180(3) of the Act. According to him he thereupon waited 14 days and having received no reply proceeded to put up the building. On the other side it is alleged that he had already put up the building before 27th April 1931 and that he had already been reported for having done so and that a prosecution had been launched against him. These are questions of fact into which I do not propose to enter. I mention them merely because it has been argued that Ambika Prasad has been...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›