Allahabad Court November 1937 Judgments
Ram Singh Vs. Sri Charan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All147
Niamatullah, Ag. C.J.1. This is a plain, tiff's second appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of the property specified ate the foot of the plaint by annulment of a sale deed executed on 8th June 1931, by his brother, Pitambar Singh and his first cousin, Maharaj Singh. The Court of first instance decreed the suit to the extent of the plaintiff's share and dismissed it as regards the share of his brother, Pitambar Singh. The plaintiff had not claimed any relief in respect of the share of his cousin, Maharaj Singh who was separate. On appeal by defendant 1, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit in its entirety holding that the consideration of the sale deed so far as it was in respect of the property belonging to the plaintiff and Pitambar Singh was such as justified the sale of the shares of both the brothers, The plaintiff has preferred the present appeal and challenges the correctness of the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. The following pedigree will ex. plain ...
Tag this Judgment!Gyan Datt and ors. Vs. Sada Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All163
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a judgment-debtors' appeal and arises out of execution proceedings taken out against them by the respondents decree-holders. The respondents have got a decree for possession by demolition of the constructions alleged to have been made by Bachchai deceased and other judgment-debtors. After passing of the decree, Bachchai died and the appellants who are his sons and grandsons have been brought on the record as his legal representatives. They objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that they were not the legal representatives of Bachchai and were not bound by the decree, The objection taken by them is inconsistent, inasmuch as at one place in it they have stated that they were in possession of the property in dispute in their own right and at another place they have contended that the whole property passed to them by survivorship on the death of Bachchai. They have not denied that Bachchai had an interest in the property in dispute. They contended:Th...
Tag this Judgment!Ganga Dhar Vs. Indar Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All195
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a first appeal from order against the decision of the learned Judge of the Court below dismissing the objections raised by the defendant to the validity of an award made by an arbitrator. The facts which have given rise to the dispute between the parties briefly put are these. Indar Singh and Ganga Dhar are two brothers. Indar Singh made an application for partition of mahal Naubat Singh in the Revenue Court. The Revenue Court proceeded with that application and eventually lots were prepared and drawn. It appears that Ganga Dhar, defendant, drew a lot containing properties which were considered to he batter than the properties which went into the other lot. Thereupon Indar Singh applicant prayed the Collector that he may be permitted to withdraw his application. The Collector granted that application in spite of the objections raised by the opposite party. Ganga Dhar preferred an appeal to the Commissioner and was successful in getting an order under which ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzari Lal and anr. Vs. Mohammad Shafi Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All204
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs to pre-empt certain property sold by defendants 3 and 4 to defendants 1 and 2 under a sale dead dated 2nd December 1932 for a consideration of Rs. 11,596. The plaintiffs' case is that the animal consideration is only Rs. 5436 and that the amount entered in the sale dead bus been inflated to discourage a suit for pre-emption. The suit was contested by the vendees and they alleged that the ostensible consideration entered in the deed is the actual consideration. There is no disputes in this case with regard to the preferential right of the plaintiffs to pre-empt this property as the vendees are admittedly strangers in this village. The sale consideration is comprised of the following items:(1) Hat off against the amount due under the mortgage dated 22nd December 1923, Rs. 6160,(2) Set off against the amount due under the mortgage dead dated 15th June 1926, Rs. 9436.2. The vendee Gulzari Lal ...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj NaraIn Singha Vs. Kedar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All119; 173Ind.Cas.920
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff against an order in appeal remanding the case to the Small Cause Court of Benares. The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note dated 6th January 1935 for recovery of Rs. 946-8-6 and the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. There were three defendants, members of a joint family, and they produced a copy of the Khatauni which showed that two of them were entered as tenants in 1935-36 (1343 F.) of an occupancy tenancy. The point was raised that defendant 3 was not an agriculturist as his name was not recorded. Both the Courts below have assumed that for the Act to apply to defendant 3, a reference is necessary to Section 2(2), Expln. 2. That is an error. The tenancy is held by the joint family and therefore the ease comes under Section 2(2)(f), i.e. a whole joint family which pays the rent for agricultural land not exceeding Rs. 500 per annum is an agriculturist. The rent in question is entered as Ks. 5 pe...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Prasad and ors. Vs. Suraj NaraIn Sinha
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All128
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a civil revision filed by the defendants against an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Benares dated 13th March 1936 refusing to grant instalments to the defendants under Section 3, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note dated 6th January 1935 for recovery of Rupees 946-8-6 and the Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. There were three defendants members of a joint family and they produced a copy of the Khatauni which showed that two of them were entered as tenants in 1342F. (1935-36) of an occupancy tenancy. The point was raised that defendant 3 was not an agriculturist as his name was not recorded. In the trial Court reliance was placed upon Expln. 2 of Section 2, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. That Explanation however does not apply to Chap. II, Section 3.2. It is however not necessary to resort to the provisions of that Explanation because in the present case the joint family hold...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Kurmi Vs. Bansraj Kurmi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All150
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration that the deed of gift executed by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant was null and void. The plaintiff's case was that he executed it taking it as a mortgage deed. The defendant got a gift deed executed instead of the mortgage deed by fraud. The defendant denied that any fraud was practised. The trial Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit on merits. There was some deficiency in the court-fee and the learned Munsif passed the following decree:The plaintiff is called upon to make the deficiency in court-fees as ordered above within 10 days hence, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected. On payment of the above court-fees only his suit will be taken to have failed on merits. The defendant will receive his costs of the case in all events of the case.2. The plaintiff filed an appeal and the learned Civil Judge has found i...
Tag this Judgment!Data Ram and anr. Vs. Dhara and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All375
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. The facts that have given rise to this reference may be shortly stated. The plaintiffs came to the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, on the allegation that they were co-tenants with the defendants of certain land which was exclusively in the cultivation of the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed profits in proportion to their share in the holding. The defendants contested the suit and alleged that the plaintiffs were not the tenants of the holding and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the pleas raised by the defendants the following issues were framed by the Court:(1). Whether the plaintiffs are co-tenants of the land in dispute with the defendants? (2). Has the Court jurisdiction to try the case?2. The lower Court felt itself bound by the ruling of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in Mt. Ram Kali v. Kamta Prasad : AIR1934All404 , but foresaw some difficulties in adopting the procedure indicated in that ruling. It has therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Rakshpal Vs. Ram Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All112; 173Ind.Cas.385
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad recommending that an order for costs passed under Section 344, Criminal P.C., should be set aside. The learned Judge relies upon the decision in Salek Chand v. Emperor : AIR1936All851 That case however can dearly be distinguished. It laid down merely that a conditional order for an adjournment under Section 526 was not justifiable as a Magistrate was bound to adjourn under Sub-section 8 of that section.2. In the case under reference the learned Magistrate took care not to pass a conditional order. It has always been held that Section 344, Criminal P.C., does justify an order for costs. It was enacted in the year 1932 that nothing contained in Sub-section 8 or Sub-section 9 of Section 526 should restrict the powers of a Court under Section 344; therefore nothing in those sub-sections can restrict the power of a Court to pass an order for costs under Section 344. A Court cannot of course pass a conditional o...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Yusuf Ali Khan and anr. Vs. Mt. Shiam Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All135
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them and other defendants respondent by the plaintiff-respondent to recover Rs. 65-15-0 for arrears of revenue for khewat No. 75. There were two sets of defendants. Defendants 1 to 7 are co-sharers in khewat Nos. 75 and 8 to 12 in khewat No. 59. All of them contended that they were not liable to pay the revenue. The trial Court decreed the suit against only one defendant. On appeal by the plaintiff, the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit for Rupees 54-1-9 against the defendants who were cosharers in khewat No. 75. A preliminary objection was taken before the learned District Judge that no appeal lay to him. The contention was that the case did not fall under Clause (d) of Section 242, Agra Tenancy Act. As already stated, the amount claimed was below Rs. 200. So the case did not fall under Clause (a). Section 242, Clauses (1)(a) and (d) lays down:An appeal shall He to the District Judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »