Allahabad Court April 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.
Muhammad Bakhsh Vs. Bohra Ram Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.367
1. This is a vendee's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The vendee was originally a co-sharer in the mahal, but executed a deed of waqf alalaulad under Act VI of 1913 appointing himself mutawalli in his lifetime and making provision for the maintenance of himself and his family. Thereupon he acquired the present share which has been sought to be pre-empted. The defence was that being the mutawalli during his lifetime, he is still a co-sharer and not a stranger to the mahal and accordingly the sale-deed taken by him cannot be pre-empted. The Court below has lightly rejected this defence. The Pre-emption Act defines co-sharer as any person other than a petty proprietor entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or village, whether his name as or is not entered in the register of proprietors Therefore it is quite clear that the person claiming to be a co-sharer must show that he is entitled as a proprietor to a share or part of a mahal. The mere fact that he is in ...
Secretary of State and anr. Vs. Farid UddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All622
1. This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree of the lower Court granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are 12 persons, residents of Patehpur Sikri in Agra District, who brought a suit in that capacity against defendant 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, and defendant 2, the Notified Area Committee, Patehpur Sikri. Para. 1 of the plaint set out that during the Moghul period the dargah of Hazrat Salim Chishti was erected and the revenue of a number of villages was assigned as an endowment for the dargah and the descendants and adherents of the Saint, who were the ancestors of the plaintiffs, and that portion of Mauza Sikri, situated within the walls of Patehpur Sikri, was also given into possession of the descendants and adherents of the Saint and the dargah as their muafi land together with all the appurtenant rights thereto. Para. 2 set out that the Sajjadanashin as superintendent on behalf of the dar...
Shyam Lal Vs. Sundar Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All661
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Lala Sunder Lal, brought this suit against the defendant, Shyam Lal, for profits for part of the year 1337F and for 1338 F. It was the plaintiff's case that he was a co-sharer in a village called Gazipur Bharatpur of which the defendant was the lambardar. According to the plaintiff's case there were good, crops during the year in question and the, tenants were not defaulters. It was alleged that the defendant lambardar had not paid to the plaintiff the plaintiff's due to him and he claimed in this suit that he should be paid profits for the years in suit on the basis of gross profits. The defendant contested the suit on a number of grounds. In the first place, he denied that the plaintiff was entitled to profits for any part of the year 1337 Fasli or for part of 1338 Fasli, because during that period he was not recorded as a co-sharer. The defendan...
Secretary of State and anr. Vs. Farid-ud DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.381
1. This is a first appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decree of the, lower Court granting a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are 12 persons, residents of Fatehpnr Sikri in Agra District, who brought a suit in that capacity against defendant No. 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, and defendant No. 2, the Notified Area Committee, Fatehpur Sikri. Paragraph 1 of the plaint set out that during the Moghul period the dargah of Hazrat Salim Chishti was erected and the revenue of a number of villages was assigned as an endowment for the dargah and the descendants and adherents of the Saint, who were, the ancestors of the plaintiffs and that portion of Mauza Sikri, situated within the walls of Fatehpur Sikri, was also given into possession of the descendants and adherents of the Saint and the dargah as their muafi land together with all the appurtenant rights thereto. Paragraph 2 set out that the Sajjadanashin, as Superintendent on...
Shyam Lal Vs. Sunder Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.686
Harries, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff. Lala Sunder Lal, brought this suit against the defendant, Shyam Lal, for profits for part of the year 1337 Fasli and for 1338 Fasli. It was the plaintiff's case that he was a co-sharer in a village called Gazipur Bharatpur of which the defendant was the lambardar According to the plaintiff's case, there were good crops during the year in question and the tenants were not defaulters. It was alleged that the defendant lambardar had not paid to the plaintiff the plaintiff's due to him and he claimed in this suit that he should be paid profits for the years in suit on the basis of gross profits. The defendant contested the suit on a number of grounds. In the first place, he denied that the plaintiff was entitled to profits for any part of the year 1337 Fasli or for part of 1338 Fasli, because during that period he was not recorded as a co-sharer. The d...
Brij Mohan Das Vs. Mt. Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All567
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the Munsif of Shahganj in execution proceedings. The appellant Brij Mohan Das obtained an ex parte decree against the opposite party, Mt. Piari, for a sum of Rs. 550 in a suit, which, so far as the Civil Procedure is concerned, could be instituted in Benares and also in Jaunpur, the plaintiff having the choice of forum. The judgment-debtor resides in Jaunpur District and the decree-holder obtained a certificate of transfer of the decree for execution in Jaunpur. When he applied to the Court at Jaunpur for execution of his decree, the judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the Court which passed the decree sought to be executed had no jurisdiction, as he (the judgment-debtor) was an agriculturist and the suit against him could be instituted only in the District in which he resided. The Court executing the decree gave effect to this objection, holding that the Benares Court had no jur...
Ranjit Rai and ors. Vs. Juthan Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All638
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the-Civil Judge of Ghazipur upholding that of a Munsif of that District returning the plaint in a civil suit for presentation in the revenue Court. It is contended in revision that the suit is cognizable by a. civil Court and that the lower Courts, were wrong in disclaiming their jurisdiction. The land in dispute was admittedly held by one Bhagat Rai as a perpetual lessee under a lease dated 25th January 1859. The lease was granted by all the then co-sharers, who are now represented by the plaintiffs and defendants first and second sets. Under the same lease several other parcels of land were similarly granted to other perpetual lessees, but the-present litigation does not relate to those other lands. Bhagat Rai died sometime in 1880, and was succeeded by his widow, Mt. Chilra, who died in 1927. At the time-of her death the land was actually cultivated by defendants third set as sub-ten-...
Sheo Shanker Das and anr. Vs. Mohammad Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All633
1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the Civil Judge of Jaunpur in a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The question was whether the applicant was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The Court below has found that the applicant pays a local rate under the District Boards' Act and also pays Government revenue, but has ignored the limits of these rates and revenues on the ground that the suit is under Chap. 5 of the Act and the limits have to be omitted under the first Proviso to Section 2(2). It is contended in appeal that, the Expln. 7 added to the section lays down that a person in districts subject to the Benares Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1795, shall not be deemed to be an agriculturist if the total of the rent and local rate annually payable by him exceeds Rs. 500, and it is urged that this Explanation must override the Proviso. We are of opinion that this Explanation has been added in order to explain the provisions of the main sectio...
Secretary of State Vs. Mahashey Ram Bharosey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All678
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 30-11-0 which was paid under protest on behalf of plaintiff-respondent on account of alleged arrears of revenue of certain zamindari property and on account of the process fee for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff-respondent and costs of attachment and pound charges of the cattle of the plaintiff-respondent. The facts are not in dispute and are as follows : A 5-biswa zamindari share in village Karanpur was owned by a lady named Mt. Bhoopan Dei. In the year 1927 Bhoopan Dei mortgaged that share to one Jado Earn by means of a deed of usufructuary mortgage. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage deed the mortgagor was not entitled to redeem the mortgage for a period of 7% years. The mortgagee's name was entered in the revenue papers and he entered in possession of the property mortgaged and was in possession during the period for which the revenue was in arrears.2. In the yea...
Hiba Ahmad Vs. Mt. Ram Piari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All533
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decree of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal of the defendant. The defendant is a lambardar and co-sharer and the plaintiff as co-sharer brought a suit in the revenue Court for a share of profits for three years and the revenue Court decreed Rs. 73-12 in favour of the plaintiff and the appeal of the defendant to the Court below has been dismissed and the second appeal of the defendant to this Court has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The claim of the defendant as argued before us was that the family of the defendant were the original owners of a zamindari share in this village and that in the year 1853 Government remitted the revenue which the family had to pay on their share. In the written statement a plea was put forward that the plaintiff was not entitled to profits as the property had been given as maintenance to the present and future generations of the defendant. The Courts below in the first instance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »