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.
Secretary of State Vs. Firm Daulat Ram-makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All632
ORDER1. This is a civil revision by defendant 2, the Secretary of State for India in Council through the agent of the G.I.P. Railway, against a Small Cause Court decree for Rs. 191-8-0 damages in favour of the plaintiff for mis-delivery of certain steel sleepers. The facts are that on 19th July 1932 four narrow guage wagons were consigned by one consignor to the same consignee, the consignee being Fahimuddin, in Belaganj. The wagons were consigned from a narrow guage station called Ulindakonda on the Nizam's Guaranteed State Railway and the consignment was to Belaganj, a broad guage station on the G.I.P. Railway at Agra. Prom the narrow guage to the broad guage it was necessary that there should be transhipment at Secunderabad, and the four narrow guage wagons were put into two broad guage wagons. These two broad guage wagons arrived at Agra on the same date and a notice was issued to the consignee to take delivery. In accordance with that notice the consignee endorsed1 the four railwa...
Jamuna Prasad and anr. Vs. Bhawani Dayal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All634
ORDER1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Azamgarh ordering the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The suit had been originally instituted on 2nd January 1935, on the basis of a promissory note dated 29th December 1931, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Bs. 150 carrying interest at Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem compounded six monthly. The defendant has been found to be an agriculturist. First the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining an ex parte decree on 13th February 1935, but the defendant got the decree set aside on showing good cause for his non-appearance. The case was accordingly restored to its original number on the file on 12th September 1935. The defendant then pleaded that he is an agriculturist and that therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim as neither he resides within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, nor does his holding lie within suc...
Mahabir Prasad Vs. Sital Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All627
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant in this Court was the defendant in a suit for money on foot of a promissory note. He pleaded that he was an agriculturist and entitled to the benefit of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The ground on which he based that claim was that he was in possession of a grove. The lower Court held that a grove holder is not an agriculturist, as defind in Section 2(2), Agriculturists' Relief Act. This view is impugned in revision. A person is an agriculturist, inter alia, if his case falls within Clause (f) of Section 2(2), Agriculturists' Relief Act. That clause refers to:A person other than a thekadar or under proprietor in Oudh holding a sub-settlement, who pays rent for agricultural land not exceeding Ra. 500 per annum.2. The applicant pays Rs. 1-7-3 for the land on which his grove stands. The lower Court holds that grove land is not an 'agricultural land'. Section 2(9) of this Act adopts the defi...
Pearey Lal Vs. Mohammad Yusuf
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All640
ORDERNiamatullah, J.1. This is a revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, and arises out of a suit for money on foot of a promissory note dated 25th May 1930. The lower Court dismissed the suit, and the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision. The lower Court has held that the suit having been brought on 27th April 1936 was barred by limitation. A payment of Rs. 2 made on 14th May 1933 was held not to have saved it. The payment is endorsed in the handwriting of the debtor on the back of the promissory note. It is, however, silent as to whether that sum was paid towards interest. The plaintiff produced extrinsic evidence, which has been believed by the lower Court and which establishes that at the time the payment was made the debtor expressly stated that it was towards interest. In spite of this finding the lower Court has dismissed the suit on the supposed authority of certain rulings of this Court. The learned Judge has not stated in his judgment why limitation is not ...
Radha Ballabha Vs. Bohra Makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All641
1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration that property attached in execution of the plaintiff's decree against defendant 2 was saleable in execution thereof. The facts are as follows : The plaintiff had a simple money decree against defendant 2 and Bam Chandra also had a simple money decree against defendant 2. Bam Chandra attached the property of defendant 2. In January 1933 the plaintiff made an application for rateable distribution to the Court which had passed both these decrees, the application being made under Section 73, Civil P.C. On 11th April 1933 the judgment-debtor, defendant 2, executed a sale deed of the property in question - house property - in favour of defendant 1, a stranger, Bohra Makhan Lal. In that sale deed there was a provision that the vendee should pay off the decree of Bam Chandra, and the vendee made payment, and on 19th April 1933 Bam Chandra applied to the Cour...
Amir HusaIn and ors. Vs. Abdul Samad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All646
1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties on the strength of a usufructuary mortgage. On 13th May 1920, Tufail Ahmad executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 9,750 of certain zamindari properties in favour of Abdul Ghani. The defendants first party are the heirs of the mortgagor Tufail Ahmad. The defendant second party is the subsequent transferee from the mortgagor with whom we are not just at present concerned. Abdul Ghani had three wives, from whom he had one son, the plaintiff, and two daughters, one of whom Azizunnisa is now dead. The suit was brought by the plaintiff alone for recovery of possession of the entire property without impleading his sister Mt. Hakim-un-nisa on the allegation that under a will he had succeeded to the estate of his father Abdul Ghani. This case was given up and no proof was led as regards this will, possibly because the will in favour of an heir would have been void. The plaintiff did not choo...
Nanhe Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Bharose and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All115
Sulaiman, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal, arising out of a suit for sale on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 20th January 1922, executed by one Mulla in favour of the plaintiffs hypothecating a house and a property called 'Nibhera' which was a collection of two shisham and 13 nim trees standing on land not belonging to the mortgagor. After this mortgage deed, the mortgagor executed a second mortgage deed of the trees only in favour of Nanki. Nanki brought a suit for sale on the basis of his mortgage deed, without impleading the present plaintiffs, and obtained a decree and purchased the trees. After his death, the property was sold by his widow viz. d of and ant 2 in this case, to the vendee defendant 3, and the latter appears to have out away the trees and appropriated them. The plaintiffs then brought a suit in 1930 on the basis of their mortgage deed and obtained a decree and executed it and got the house sold and purchased it themselves. In the meantime, Nanki had died befor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›