Allahabad Court November 1937 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.
Havelock Charles David Goodall Vs. Mrs. Beatrice Honor Agatha Goodall
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All121
ORDERHarries, J.1. This is an application by Mr. H.C.D. Goodall who was the respondent in Matrimonial Suit No. 8 of 1932 for an order varying the order for alimony passed in that suit. The applicant and the opposite party were husband and wife and on 15th December 1932 this Court passed a decree nisi in favour of the opposite party and on 4th August 1933 this decree nisi wan made absolute. By the decree of this Court, the applicant was inter alia ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50 per month as alimony to his wife and a sum of Rs. 400-9.0 as costs of the suit. The payment of alimony has fallen into arrears and there is now due from the applicant to the opposite party a sum of Rs. 1300 or thereabouts under the decree to which I have referred. The opposite party re-married in May 1937 and no question of alimony after that date can possibly arise. The present application concerns this sum of Rs. 1300 or thereabouts which represents the arrears of alimony due under the decree of this Court for ...
Mt. Champi Bai Vs. Pearey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All116
Allsop, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of execution proceedings. A decree was passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Banda on 16th July 1930. The Court of the Additional Judge was abolished on 30th March 1932. Another Additional Judge was appointed on 16th March 1933. The application for execution of the decree of 16th July 1930 was made to the Additional Subordinate Judge. The question before him was whether the decree had been certified. The allegation of the judgment-debtor was that the decree-holder had certified the adjustment of the decree to the Subordinate I Judge on 19th August 1933. The Additional Subordinate Judge held that the certification was of no effect because the Court of the Subordinate Judge was not the proper Court in which the adjustment of the decree should be certified and because the Subordinate Judge had not passed an order recording the adjustment of the decree. He dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor. On appeal the learned District...
Nanhua Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All118; 173Ind.Cas.732
ORDERBennet, J.1. This is a criminal reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Fatehpur recommending that a conviction of one Nanhua under Section 186, I.P.C., and fine of Rs. 20 or in default 20 days rigorous imprisonment should be set aside on the ground that the facts proved do not disclose the offence. The Judge sets out that a constable was on traffic duty at crossing and Ashiq, brother of the accused, passed on an akka and the constable tried to stop Mm but Ashiq did not obey the order. Shortly afterwards the accused appeared and abused the constable in threatening language for having attempted to stop his brother. The constable made a report and on those facts the accused has been convicted under Section 186, I.P.C. That section states that whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions shall be guilty of the offence. Now, the public functions of the constable at the time wars the regulation of traffic at a crossing on a public road. T...
Kali Charan Vs. Babu Hari Shanker Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All146
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal from an order by the Court below directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the proper Court. The plaintiff sued for damages upon the allegation that the defendant had cut down a tree in his grove. The defendant claimed to be the landholder and argued that the suit was really one for dispossession, that an adequate relief could be given by the Revenue Court, and that therefore the Civil Court bad no jurisdiction. The defendant is admittedly not recorded as a co-sharer. His case was that the property had been acquired by his father on behalf of a joint Hindu family of which he and his father were members. In our judgment even if this is so, it is not a fact which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The defendant personally is not a landholder. Even on his own allegation, if his claim that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family is justified, then it is the joint Hindu family and not individual members th...
Wakf Banam Khudawand Karim Mahal Faiz Mohammad Khan Vs. Mt. Raj Kali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All157
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal brought by a plaintiff whose suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on I the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue. The suit was one for preemption and the plaintiff is described in the plaint as 'Wakf in the name of God, Mahal Faiz Mohammad Khan, situate in rnouza Tslamnagar under the supervision of Mt. Ghandar Begum, daughter of Faiz Mohammad Khan.' Now it is found by the Court below that Faiz Mohammad Khan made a wakf of his property and in January 1921 on his death, his daughter Mt. Ohnndar Begum succeeded as mutwalli, The Court below has taken the view that the plaintiff is not a person contemplated by Section 4(1), Pre-emption Act, because the plaintiffis neither a sentient being not a company association nor a body of individuals juristically clothed with legal tights.2. The Court below has distinguished the case of an idol installed in a temple by stating that the idol is clad with clot...
Mazhar Hasan and ors. Vs. Mukhtar Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All64; 173Ind.Cas.360
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by three plaintiffs whose suit for a declaration that a sale deed executed by Ashoor Ali, defendant 2, in favour of Mukhtar Husain, defendant 1, dated 21st July 1934, is null and void so far as it is prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that they were owners of the property under a prior sale deed of 22nd August 1907 for which their names had never been entered by mutation in the khewat. The plaintiffs represented the persons entitled to 3/4ths of the property in suit and the person entitled to the remaining one quarter has not joined in the suit and he has not been brought on the record. The property in question is shares in various mahals and villages. The plaintiffs were usufructuary mortgagees under a mortgage of 28th December 1885) and a further mortgage of 8th August 1890. Mutation was obtained of the names of the plaintiffs as usufructuary mortgagees in 1905, the owner being recorded as defendant 2. The plaintif...
Sheo Ram Vs. Ram Datt and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All88
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a single defendant, Sheo Ram, against the-concurring decrees of the two lower Courts. The plaintiffs brought a suit claiming a. declaration that they alone were in possession of certain numbers of sir plots. The defendants contested that these plots were the sir plots of the defendants and that they had been in possession for a long time. The lower Court finds as a matter of fact that the plaintiffs have been in possession of these plots from the time of an award in 1925. The first argument made by learned Counsel for the appellant was that this award required registration. Now, in the first place, a distinction is drawn by the Agra Tenancy Act, Act 3 of 1926, Section 5, between sir and proprietary rights, which. states:On the death of a sir holder his sir right shall devolve on the person who succeeds to his proprietary interest in the sir.2. The rights therefore with which we are-concerned in the present suit are not the proprietary rights in t...
Udai Pal Singh Vs. Pyare and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All109
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal on behalf of a minor through his certified guardian against a preliminary decree of the lower Appellate Court in a suit for sale on a mortgage. The trial Court had dismissed the suit. The facts are that the mother of the minor, Mt. Maharaj Kunwar, was formerly his certified guardian and on 13th January 1922 she made an application to the District Judge asking under Section 29, Guardians and Wards Act permission to execute a mortgage of the property of the minor for a sum of Rs. 550, for three items : (1) 'gaona' ceremony of the sister of the minor; (2) for necessary expenses; (3) the upkeep of the minor, and stating that she had arranged with the plaintiff, Bhola, to lend the money at Rs. 1.12.0 percent. per mensem and that some land would be leased to the mortgagee from the month of Jeth following to pay the interest on the loan and therefore the arrangement would be for the benefit of the minor. On 16th January 1922 the District Judge passed a bri...
Sheomurat Singh and ors. Vs. Dip NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All108
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by seven defendants who are mortgagees of specific plots from a cosharer. The plaintiff is the owner of a share of two annas nine pies in a village and he brought a suit for profits against certain cosharers and the mortgagees of specific plots of those cosharers and the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff for profits. One of the points argued in appeal is ground No. 3 that the appellants are only transferees oil specific plots of land and cannot be legally regarded as cosharers and no decree under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act, of 1926 can be passed against them. This point has been the subject of a decision of a Bench of this Court reported in Jadunath Singh v. Hanuman Singh (1913) 18 A.I.R. All. 668 and the Bench of which I was a member held) that when a cosharer makes a usufructuary mortgage of part of his share or of specific plots of which he is in exclusive possession, a Court in a suit for profits should regard the cosharer a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›