Allahabad Court September 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.
Chotku Vs. Ram Nath Sahu and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936All880; 166Ind.Cas.287
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a defendant against a decree of the Small Cause Court awarding the plaintiff a refund of Rs. 62-3-0, purchase money. The admitted facts are that the applicant defendant Chhotku sold the wood of two trees which had fallen down to the plaintiff. The plaintiff cut up these trees but when he attempted to remove them from the grove of the defendant he was prevented from doing so by defendant 2. Learned Counsel has argued that plaintiff should not have obtained a decree and that his remedy should have been against defendant 2. It is true that the Court below has held that the wood belonged to defendant 1 and that defendant 1 stopped the plaintiff from taking the wood. The question between the plaintiff and defendant 1 is under the Sale of Goods Act and Section 33 lays down that delivery may be effected as follows:Delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be; treated as delivery or which has the effected pu...
Giyan Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All47; 166Ind.Cas.363
ORDERCollister, J.1. Giyan Chandra was convicted by a Magistrate on a charge under Section 411, I.P.C. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, but his appeal has been dismissed. He has now come in revision to this Court. It is proved that on 6th March 1935, a bicycle belonging to a Jain boy named Prakash Chandra, a resident of Bijnor, was stolen. The applicant is also a Jain and a resident of Bijnor, and his age is said to be 22 or 23. On 2nd August 1935 a cycle dealer named Muhammad Ali informed a Sub-Inspector that he had seen a youth going towards the Railway Station on a stolen bicycle. The Sub-Inspector at once went to the station, taking Muhammad Ali with him, and he there arrested the applicant in possession of a bicycle. It is proved by evidence and is not denied on behalf of the applicant that this bicycle is-the one which was stolen on 6th March 1935, and is the property of Prakash Chandra. The defence is that Muhammad Ali, knowing that the applicant wanted to buy a bicycle, sent ...
Babunandan Singh and ors. Vs. Phunesh Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All105
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against a decree of a learned single Judge of this Court, under the following circumstances : Plaintiff 1 brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif asking for possession of certain fallow land, trees and bamboo clumps from the defendants. The plaintiff set out that he was the lessee (otherwise the kadar), of the entire 16 annas zamindari under the lease of 19th December 1919 of the whole of the mauza and he stated that in part of a certain sub-number 384/1 in the abadi the house of one Ganesh had stood and that 8 years ago Ganesh had gone away to another village and the zamindar of the village entered into possession of the ruins of the said house. The plaint was brought in 1931 and it is clear that by 'zamindar' the plaintiff did not mean himself but meant that the zamindar previous to this theka had entered into possession. The plaint, proceeded to say that there were jackfruit trees and bamboo clumps and a mm tree on this fallow l...
Mt. Parbati Vs. Gajraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All28; 166Ind.Cas.624
1. This is a second appeal by Mt. Parbati whose suit for ejectment and damages in the revenue Court has been dismissed by both the Courts below, and her second appeal has been referred to a Bench of two Judges. The case is very simple. Mt. Parbati sued under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act, for the ejectment of her step-son Gajraj Singh the sole defendant, from certain plots in a village claiming that the plaintiff had been a proprietor and had been in possession and that the defendant had recently entered into possession of the plots without her consent. The plaintiff is the second wife of Thakur Drigpal Singh, and the defendant is the son of Thakur Drigpal Singh by his first wife. There was a sale deed by which property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, and the argument for the defence was that this purchase was made by Drigpal Singh with funds of the joint family and that the name of the plaintiff was merely entered farzi for her consolation. The appellant relies on the judgm...
Jwala Prasad Vs. Mt. Padmawati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All56
1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent who is his wife for getting her maintenance charged on the property of the defendant described in the plaint. The plaintiff brought suit No. 22 of 1931 against the defendant for maintenance which was decreed on 3rd September 1931. The plaintiff was given a decree for Rs. 25 per month for her maintenance. This maintenance allowance has been regularly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this suit (Suit No. 89 of 1932) out of which this appeal arose for getting the maintenance, fixed in the former suit, charged on the property of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was intending to transfer or make a gift of the property in suit to his second wife or any other person with a view to interfere with the maintenance allowance of the plaintiff. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had no cause of action and the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C...
Chotey Lal Vs. Sudershan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All119; 167Ind.Cas.648
1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1935 is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of half share in a shop. This shop had belonged to Bijai and Sri Gopal in equal shares. In 1917 Bijai mortgaged his half-share in this shop along with his share in another house to one Gulzari Lal, who sold his mortgagee rights to Babu Earn. On 12th August 1918, Bijai first executed a sale-deed of his half share in the shop in favour of the present plaintiff, but declined to get it registered. On 15th August 1918, on the other hand, he executed a sale-deed of the same half share in favour of the defendant, Sri Gopal, and presented it for registration on 20th August 1918. The present plaintiff then applied before the District Registrar for compulsory registration of his sale-deed which was registered on 29th November 1918. Money had been (sic) in the hands of the plaintiff and also in the hands of Sri Gopal for payment of the earlier mortgage of...
Mohammad Huzabbar Ali Khan Vs. Abdul Fateh Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All54; 166Ind.Cas.884
1. This is an appeal against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur dismissing the applicant appellant's application under O. 34, E. 6. The facts of the case can be shortly stated as follows:On 18th November 1920 one Mt. Muniza Begam and her husband Sabihuddin Khan executed a security bond in favour of a firm named Sahimal Manohar Das. The subject-matter of this security bond was the sole property of Mt. Muniza Begam. In due course the firm Sahimal Manohar Das brought a suit, No. 95 of 1926, against Mt. Muniza Begam and obtained a mortgage-decree affecting the property. After the decree had been passed Mt. Muniza Begam died leaving two heirs, viz., Mt. Ahmadi Begam and Musharraf Ali Khan, who succeeded to the property in equal shares. Mt. Ahmadi Begam sold her share in the mortgaged property which she had inherited from her mother to the present applicant-appellant on 10th August i928. The latter paid up the whole of the decretal amount due to the firm Sahimal...
Secretary of State Vs. Sundar Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All80
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State arising out of certain land acquisition proceedings. The property acquired was a house, No. 69 in Mirganj, within the Municipal limits of Allahabad. According to the finding of the Tribunal, it is situated within 50 paces of the Clock Tower which is in the centre of the town. The house consisted of two rooms, two verandahs, one puces courtyard and one latrine on the ground floor and a pucca roof with a pucca room on the upper storey. The area of the house was 26 feet 26 feet and it was situated at a distance of 20 paces from the Grand Trunk Road. The Land Acquisition Officer found that the Municipal taxes had been assessed on the basis of Rs. 48 yearly (monthly appears to be a mistake), and thought that Rs. 5 per month after making deductions for repairs, etc., would be a fair amount, that is, he thought that the rent fetched would be more, but the average rent per month might be taken to be Rs. 5 after allowing for repairs, vacancies, etc...
Guardian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thakur Shiva Mangal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All208
1. This is an appeal from an order filing an agreement of reference to arbitration. The applicant Thakur Shiva Mangal Singh got certain ornaments injured with the defendant company for Rs. 18,000 with a guarantee that if the articles be lost by burglary and house, breaking at any time within the period fixed, then the company shall pay or make good all such loss or damages not exceeding the sum of Rs. 18,000. There were a Large number of other conditions contained in numerous paragraphs printed overleaf among which there was a clause that if any question or difference arose between the insured or any claimant upon this policy and the company as to the meaning and effect of this policy or as to any claim by or any right or liability of either party by virtue thereof, the same shall be referred to arbitration and be decided by arbitrators mutually chosen or by an umpire chosen by them previously to commencing arbitration, and the award shall be binding and conclusive on the parties to th...
Mt. Idia and ors. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937All18; 166Ind.Cas.611
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution second appeal by Mt. Idia, an auction-purchaser, who claimed a refund of the money which she had paid at an auction sale from the decree-holder. The auction sale took place in October 1926 and it was confirmed in November 1926 and the appellants took possession in February 1927. Two years later in 1929 certain strangers, Basudeo Sahai and others, brought a suit for possession claiming a share in the house sold at the auction sale and obtained a decree for possession on 18th May 1929. The appellant claims a refund of the purchase money on this ground. The lower appellate Court has held that there is no rule of law under which such a claim can be brought. Learned Counsel for the appellant claimed that his client was entitled in equity to a refund; but the only section to which he could refer was the general Section 151, Civil P.C. Recourse should not be had to a general section of that nature for a remedy which does not come under some positive rule of l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »