Allahabad Court February 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.
Deo Saran Singh Vs. Loknath Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All559
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, by the plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed by the lower Court as barred by limitation. The facts, which are no longer in dispute, are that the bond in suit was executed by, Narain, the deceased father of the defendants, on 17th June 1928. The bond provides for payment before 31st May 1931. The suit was brought on 28th April 1936, that is, more than three years from, the date fixed for payment. The lower Court applied Article 66, Limitation Act, and. held that the suit was barred. It is contended by the defendants that Article 66 applies to cases in which a suit is brought against the executant of the bond himself and does not apply to a case in which it is brought against his sons for enforcement of their pious obligation to pay the debt of their father. I shall presently explain the case of this Court on which reliance is placed by learned Counsel for the applicant. Confining my attention to the l...
Ramakant Patak Vs. Murlidhar Pande
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.483
ORDER1. This is a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, made by the Judge of tae Court of small Causes at Mohammadabad in the district of Ghazipur. A. plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 69 10-0 and paid a court-fee of four annas only. There was a deficiency. The plaintiff was allowed a period of three weeks and then a further period of two days for the payment of the amount still due. He, failed to make any payment and his plaint was consequently rejected. Thereupon he made an application for the refund of the sum of four annas which he had already paid upon the plaint. The learned Judge in making this reference has admitted that there is no specific provision of law under which the amount paid could be refunded. He has thought, now-ever, that it was unfair to take the money from the plaintiff and at the same time to refuse to take any action upon the plaint. He has referred to the case in Manna Lal v. Ram Chandra : AIR1930All471 in which i...
Ramchandra Sahai and anr. Vs. Dalpat and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All526
Bennet, J.1. This is an objection by a creditor to the discharge of three insolvents Dalpat, Jehangiri and Gur Sahai, who have been discharged by the Court below after being insolvents for six years. The date of adjudication was 16th June 1928. The applicants in insolvency were cultivators, and on 12th March 1932, the Court gave them two years to apply for discharge. Towards the end of that period they applied on 7th March 1934. It is true that only Rs. 150 had been distributed and the schedule debts were Rupees 5,050-11.6, so that the distribution was much less than eight annas in the rupee. No point was taken under Section 41, Sub-section (1)(a) and that point has not been taken in first appeal. The ground which has been taken by learned Counsel is under Section 42(1)(h), which states that the insolvent has on any previous occasion been adjudged an insolvent or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors. Learned Counsel argues that on 7th November 1931, there was a compromi...
Lala Jwala Prasad Vs. Thakur Dwarka Dhishji Maharaj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All474; 170Ind.Cas.28
Bannet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by a judgment-debtor against an order of the Civil Judge of Aligarh. The claim of the judgment-debtor is that the Aligarh Court has no jurisdiction in execution proceedings of a decree which was passed by a Court in Muttra. The Court in Muttra transferred this decree under the provisions of Section 39 and, Order XXI, Rule 6. etc. The transfer was made in 1933, and there was attachment of certain property of the judgment-debtor by the Court at Aligarh and the judgment-debtor made an objection to that attachment, and on January 6, 1934, the Aligarh Court dismissed the objection of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal in the High Court, and an application was made for the record to be sent to the High Court. On May 19, 1934, the Aligarh Court passed an order that the record should be sent to the High Court and as the execution proceeding was pending for over a year the case should be filed and the attachment should remain ...
L. Ram Chandra Vs. L. Asa Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All429
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant against a decree of the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession to 8 biswas of land in plot No. 330 in Mahal Baru Mal, Mauza Koter contiguous to the abadi but not forming part of the abadi. The trial Court decreed in favour of the defendant. The Courts below have not however clearly stated how the case arose. The order of 28th April 1933 by an Assistant Collector shows that there was a suit for perfect partition of this Mauza Koter, whether of this mahal or of other mahals also is not stated, and in that partition case an objection was made by the plaintiff claiming proprietary title and his order is:I direct the objector to file a declaratory suit in the civil Court within three months and get a declaration.2. Now such an order is passed under Section 111, Land Revenue Act, on the objection by a recorded co-sharer in the Mahal which is the subject of the par...
Firm Ram Lal-bhikam Chand Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All400
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff applicant consigned from railway station Latehar to Belanganj a certain quantity of condemned railway materials. The booking clerk charged them at the rate of Rs. 4-3 per maund. When the goods arrived at their destination, the railway official of Belanganj station charged an excess calculating the freight at the rate of Rs. 6-2. The plaintiff paid under protest, and sued for recovery of the excess. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that it was not open to the railway to disregard its contract with him for carriage of the goods at the rate agreed upon. If there had been nothing else in the case, this argument would have been unanswerable. It has, however, been brought out in the evidence that the plain, tiff was charged at the rate of Rs. 4-3 per maund by the clerk, of Latehar, as he was under a mistaken belief that the materials which were being consigned were 'home materials', for w...
Emperor Vs. F.G. Kalkhowan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All418
1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against a judgment of acquittal. The respondent is a gentleman named Mr. F.G. Kalkhowan, who is - or was - the General Manager, of a concern, known as the Amusement Variety Company. On 8th June 1936 he applied to the Chairman of the Municipal Board at Bareilly for permission to exhibit his show and in his application he stated that it would consist of theatrical performances, circus, acrobatics and some games of skill. The Chairman on that same date wrote the following order:To the E.O. for disposal. I have no authority to give or revoke license. If he gives license, I cannot say anything. Personally I have no objection if it is not objectionable.2. That same day the Executive Officer refused permission, but his order was so worded as practically to disclaim personal responsibility for the refusal. After referring to the applicant's testimonials and the Chairman's endorsement on the application, the Executive Officer wrote as follows;There i...
Firm Ram Lal Bhikam Chand Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.802
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff applicant consigned from Railway Station Latehar to Belanganj a certain quantity of condemned Railway materials. The booking clerk charged them at the rate of As. 4-3 per maund. When the goods arrived at their destination the Railway Official of Belanganj Station charged an excess calculating the freight at the rate of As. 6-2. The plaintiff paid under protest, and sued for recovery of the excess. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that it was not open to the Railway to disregard its contract with him for carriage of the goods at the rate agreed upon. If there had been nothing else in the case, this argument would have been unanswerable. It has, however, been brought out in the evidence that the plaintiff was charged at the rate of As. 4-3 per mound by the clerk, of Latehar, as he was under a mistaken belief that the materials which were being consigned were 'home materials', for whi...
inayat Ullah Vs. Musammat Hoshyari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.117
ORDERNiamat Ullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff-applicant sued the defendant to recovery of Rs. 179 the price of certain bullocks, alleged to have been purchased by the defendant from him. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim. In the course of evidence a document described in the judgment of the lower Court as 'hulia' was produced by the plaintiff, and it was found to have an endorsement on the reverse as follows:One ox, worth Rs. 179, less Rs. 8 for an ox given in exchange, of Rs. 171 payable on demand at the rate of Rs. 2 per cent. per month.3. Underneath this endorsement is the signature of Amar Singh the predecessor-in-title of the defendant opposite party. There is a practice in all cattle markets in these provinces to register full description of the cattle sold. The entries are made in two counter-parts of, the same document, one of which is handed over to the purchaser. The endorsement in question appears on the ...
Chairman, Municipal Board Vs. Bhajan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All444
1. This is a second appeal by the Municipal Board of Jhansi against an appellate decree of the learned District Judge of Jhansi granting an injunction to the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff brought a suit setting out that in May 1930 he made an application to the Municipal Board for the construction of a house on his own land, and when he did not get any order for construction for a long time, he started construction of the house after giving notice to the Board, and in the following year in 1931 the Board required that a portion of the house should be demolished and eventually demolished it, and he therefore asked for an injunction. The Board contested the suit on the various grounds : that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land on which the Board had ordered demolition, that the Board had refused permission for building on that particular portion shown by the letters MNOPQR, and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. The trial Court framed an issue 'Is the suit barred by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »