Allahabad Court February 1937 Judgments
Tikam Singh Vs. Bhola Nath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All470; 170Ind.Cas.975
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The suit is somewhat peculiar. Defendant No 2, Roshan Singh executed a usufructuary mortgage of his immovable property on September 11, 1931, in favour of defendant No. 1, Bhola Nath, for a sum of Rs. 4,800, and the mortgage deed specified that out of this amount Rs. 1,300 were left with the mortgagee for payment to one Khazan Singh in cafe Khazan Singh obtained a decree against the mortgagor in a suit, the nature of which is not specified, Suit No. 616 of 1931, which was taken was then pending. It was further stipulated that in case Khazan Singh's suit against the mortgagor was dismissed, the mortgagor would be entitled to recover the Ks. 1,300 from the mortgagee. But there was no provision in the deed as to what was to happen if the suit was decreed for a less sum than Rs. 1,300. Eventually the suit of Khazan Singh was decreed for Rs. 1,246 1-6 leaving a ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajman Ram Vs. Sarju Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All422
1. This is an execution second appeal by Rajman Ram, applicant, whose application in execution has been dismissed in toto by the learned District Judge. Rajman held a decree No. 202 of 1930 for Rs. 860-8-0 against Jawahir Lal and Gaya Lal. Jawahir Lal and Gaya Lal held a decree No. 108 of 1927 for Rs. 486 against Sarju Prasad and Ram Narain. The present application was made after attachment of that decree by Rajmsui, and Rajman applied for execution of that decree No. 108. The mode in which he asked for execution was that out of Rupees 1,555-2-4 which was kept in deposit in favour of the judgment-debtor in Suit No. 438 of 1928 on 4th May 1931 might be attached and the total amount of decree No. 108 paid to Rajman. Now Sarju Prasad and Ram Narain had a decree : No. 58 of 1927 for Rs. 2805 against Jawahir Lal and Gaya Lal. They claimed that they had a right to set off the smaller deorees against them under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 18, and the lower appellate Court was correct in ...
Tag this Judgment!Hafiz Ahmad Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Anand Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All635
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit in which alternative reliefs were prayed for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the property specified at the foot of the plaint was jagir and was not transferable and in the alternative prayed for a declarationthat the revenue of the property aforesaid being a pension of the plaintiffs is not transferable and that the defendants are not entitled to treat the property in suit as revenue-free grant.2. One of the contentions raised by the defendants was that the suit was barred by Section 47, Civil P.C. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to this contention and dismissed the suit. He did not record findings on the other issues in the case. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court and it is contended on their behalf that the decision of the Court below is erroneous. In our judgment this contention is well founded and ought to prevail. The facts that led to the institution of the suit are...
Tag this Judgment!Lachman Vs. Lal Ratnaker Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All472; 170Ind.Cas.121
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a suit brought by the zamindar against the defendant Lachman and other members of his family, for the demolition and removal of a channel which has been built by the defendant on the open piece of ground in front of his house. The defendant is a tenant in the village but the site in dispute is a part of the abadi lands and is not included in his tenancy lands. There was a further relief claimed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right, or making any constructions on the land. The defence was that the site was a part of the defendant's sehan, which he had been using and over which he had been tying his cattle, and that he had a right to build upon that land. There was a further plea that the plaintiff was estopped from maintaining the suit and also that the claim was barred by limitation. All the Courts have held that the defendant has no right to build upon this land at all, but th...
Tag this Judgment!Kunwar Muhammad Ubaid-ullah Khan Vs. Kunwar Muhammad Abdul Jalil Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All481; 170Ind.Cas.657
1. These two First Appeals and the Execution Appeal arise out of litigation which had previously taken place between the parties concerning certain zamindari shares in the villages of Chakhathal and Kakathal in the district of Aligarh.2. First Appeal No. 191 of 1933 is a plaintiffs' appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Aligarh, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for mesne profits for the years 1916 to 1929 relating to the plaintiffs' share in village Chakhathal. First Appeal No. 140 of 1934 is a defendant's appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Aligarh, decreeing the plaintiff's claim-for repayment of certain moneys which the defendant had wrongfully compelled the plaintiff to pay. Execution First Appeal No. 279 of 1934 is a judgment-debtors' appeal against an order of the execution Court, disallowing an objection which he had preferred to an execution. Before considering the details of each particular case it will be necessary to set out at some length t...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Das Vs. Murli Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All465; 170Ind.Cas.119
Bennet, J.1. In these two second appeals the defendant brought a first appeal against a preliminary decree for accounts. The plaintiff sued defendant No. 1 as his agent for collecting the rent of a house in Calcutta and for rendition of accounts and the plaintiff valued his suit at Rs. 2.100 or whatever sum was found due and paid court-fee on the amount of Rs. 2,100. The preliminary decree held that defendant No. 1 was liable to render accounts for the period 1920 to July 1928. The defendant appealed on the ground: (1) that he was not liable to render accounts before 1923: and (2) that he had rendered accounts for the period 1923 to 1928 and he asked that the preliminary decree for rendering accounts should be set aside. He valued his appeal at Rs. 100. The Munsarim reported that the appeal should bear the original valuation of Rs. 2,100. The Court ordered on December 6, 1932: 'Admit the appeal subject to the objection as to court-fees.'2. On November 17, 1934 the Court rejected the ap...
Tag this Judgment!L. Piarey Lal Vs. Mohammad Salamat Ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All435
1. A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of this appeal that this appeal has abated. The respondents had applied for the adjudication of Piara Lal as insolvent. The Court adjudicated him an insolvent and Piare Lal appealed to this Court. During the pendency of the appeal Piare Lal died and his heirs have been brought on the record. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the right to contest the order for adjudication was a personal right vested in Piare Lal, and that on his death the appeal abated.2. The learned Counsel for the respondents relies strongly on three cases of the Lahore High Court which no doubt to a certain extent support his contention. In Hardhian Singh v. Sham Sundar (1888) 69 P.R. 1888, it was held by a Division Bench of the Punjab Chief Court that under the provisions of the then Code of Civil Procedure an order made under Section 351 was purely personal and on the death of an insolvent no one represented him for the purpose of defending an appe...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nityanand Mathur Vs. Lala Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All506
Harries, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal against a decree of the lower appellate Court, confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the claim. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff against four defendants for Rs. 2,000 damages for malicious prosecution. Both the lower Courts have held that no action would lie and there, fore have dismissed the suit. The facts of the case are somewhat unusual and it is desirable that they should be stated in some detail : The plaintiff is a Mukhtar practising at Sambhal in the district of Moradabad. The defendant Ramji Mal is a zamindar in the district and the defendant Babu Ram is his son and mukhtar-i-am. The defendants Dhanna and Narpat are two tenants of Ramji Mal.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants Ramji Mal and Babu Ram had been on hostile terms for some time and it is the case for the plaintiff that Ramji Mal and Babu Ram conspired together with the two other defendants to ruin the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Lal Vs. Jagannath and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All527
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, by the defendant, arising out of a suit for the plaintiffs' share of arrears of rent of a certain shop alleged to have been let to him. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled to one-fourth of the rent payable in respect of the shop under a rent note executed by the defendant. The only plea which is pressed in revision is that the defendant paid the entire rent to one of the co-sharers and obtained a discharge. The lower Court held that payment to one of several co-sharers does not give a valid discharge to a tenant. The question as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to sue for their own share alone has not been raised in this Court. There was at least one other suit for arrears of rent by another co-sharer for his share only, and it was successful. The lower Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to sue for their share alone. The correctness of this view has not been impugned in revision.2. As t...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Jamilunnissa and anr. Vs. Sheikh Mohammad Zia
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All547
1. These two appeals are connected and arise out of two suits brought by two sets of plaintiffs against the same defendants, in respect of a small plot of land which is an open piece of ground neither enclosed by any boundary wall nor even enclosed by any hedge or ditch. This is a part of the joint lands in the mahal and was apparently solely used by Mohammad Zia about 1922 when on 13th February 1922 he executed a deed of gift in favour of the defendant Mt. Jamilunnissa, who was a relation of his, and got the same document duly registered. In the deed he expressly declared that he had on that day delivered possession of the property to the donee, who had accepted the gift and taken possession, and that after that date he would have no concern with the property so gifted. Up to April 1929 Mohammad Zia did not take any steps to get the deed of gift cancelled, nor even served any notice on the defendant informing her that the gift had been revoked by him. About that time the defendant app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »