Allahabad Court August 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.
Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. B. Jugal Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All13
1. This is a decree-holder's appeal against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur in execution proceedings. It appears that the Benares Bank Ltd. obtained a simple money decree against Jugal Kishore for a certain sum of money. The judgment-debtor's property was attached and proceedings for sale were taken. The sale took place, but it has not yet been confirmed. In the meantime, the judgment-debtor applied under the Encumbered Estates Act to the Collector, who accepted his application under Section 6 and forwarded it to the Special Judge for action being taken under that Act. The lower Court which was the Court executing the decree passed an order which runs as follows:The judgment-debtor produces an order passed under Section 6, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. So acting under Section 7(1) of that Act, I quash the execution proceedings and close the file....2. The decree-holder has come to this Court in appeal, and contends that the sale having already taken place, ...
Dasrath Teli and anr. Vs. Ram Das Thakurai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All798
Harries, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiff's claim in part for the removal of certain constructions unlawfully made by the defendants and possession of the sites thereof. The plaintiff was the zamindar of the village of Dhobauli and he alleged that the defendants had built two new osaras, one to the east and one to the south of their house and further had built a new charan and certain other constructions also to the south of their house. It was the plaintiff's case that these constructions were recent; and had been made in the month of Jeth 1932. The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that osaras in question in their present form had existed at least for fourteen years and that previous to them there had been older osaras on the same sites. It was also pleaded that the charan and other constructions had been on the land for a long time and that, in any event, the land south of the house was the sehan land of...
Bir Ram Vs. Lachmi Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All781
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree passed by a Small Cause Court Judge dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff not having paid the costs incurred by the Government and by the opposite party in opposing an application made by the plain, tiff to sue in forma pauperis was not entitled to maintain the present suit. The facts that have given rise to the present application are as follows: The plaintiff-applicant filed an application for permission to sue as a pauper. According to the application the claim against the defendant-opposite party was for a sum of Rs. 500 and odd. The application was opposed both by the Government and by the defendant and the learned Small Cause Court Judge on 18th May 1935 dismissed the application 'with costs', but directed that 'the court-fee shall be paid within two weeks and the plaint will then be registered'. No formal order embodying the decision of the learned Judge was however prepared. Th...
Mt. Anis Begam and anr. Vs. Lala Shyam Sunder Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All792
ORDER1. Civil Revision No. 364 of 1936 is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned Additional Munsif of Bareilly rejecting a plaint which had been filed in a suit brought by the plain, tiffs under Section 33, United Provinces Agriculturists Relief Act. First Appeal from order No. 175 of 1936 is a plaintiffs' first appeal from the order of the learned Civil Judge of Bareilly rejecting a plaint and directing it to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. This plaint referred to the same matter and was filed in a suit claiming the same relief as had originally been claimed in the Court of the Munsif.2. The matter arose in this way. The plain, tiffs borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,000 from the defendant upon a mortgage deed dated 20th December 1929 whereby they agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1-2-0 per cent, per mensem. The plaintiffs were agriculturists and were consequently entitled to a reduction of interest under the provisions of the A...
Thakur Pratap Singh Vs. L. Brijnath Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All786
ORDER1. This is an application for revision from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Agra, dated 13th May 1936, allowing an application of the respondents made under Section 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (Act 14 of 1920). The first point taken is that the applicant had no interest in this trust. The learned Judge has found that the applicant is a worshipper at the temple, is a resident of the locality, and a member of the same caste as that of the deceased founder. It is also clear that if the income of the trust is to be spent on charitable purposes, then the applicant can have an interest in the trust and is certainly entitled to see that it is duly administered. The question is mainly one of fact, and we would not entertain this point in revision. Another point taken is that one of the trustees, Dr. Raja Earn, was not impleaded and accordingly there is a non-compliance with the imperative provisions of Order 31, Rule 2, under which where there are several trustees they shall...
Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh Vs. Puran Chand Har Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All15
1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rupees 2,973-5-0 brought by the plaintiff against, the Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh in charge of the Dhingwas Estate. The plaintiff's case was that the Rajah of Dhingwas had executed a promissory note on 1st August 1928 for Rs. 10,000 bearing interest at 12 per cent, per annum with six-monthly rests and that although the. Deputy Commissioner had under Section 19, Court of Wards Act, reduced the rate of interest to 6 per cent, per annum, there had been no discharge of the claim within; the two years allowed by Section 19 of the Act and that accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole amount at the contractual rate. The first Court dismissed the claim, but on appeal the lower Appellate Court has allowed it.2. The facts are not in dispute. The Collector had on 20th March 1931 reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent, per annum with six-monthly rests to 6 per cent, per annum. As required by the ...
In Re: Jodha Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All769
ORDER1. This is a reference under Order 46, Section 1, Civil P.C., made by the learned Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. It appears that a certain person, claiming to be a landlord within the meaning of Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, made an application to the Collector for action being taken under that section. The Collector entertained the application and, after the usual preliminary notices, accepted it and forwarded the same to the Special Judge. An objection was taken before the Special Judge by one of the creditors that the application to the Collector had not been 'duly made'. The ground on which this objection was based was that the applicant was not a recorded co-sharer and therefore not a 'landlord,' as contemplated by Section 4 of the Act. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Special Judge must proceed to dispose of the application in the manner laid down by the Act and that an objection of the kind made before...
Ram Chandra Singh and anr. Vs. Lala Misri Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All790
1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for ejectment. In 1907 a usufructuary mortgage was executed by Daulat Earn of certain zamindari share including his sir plots. At the same time he exeouted a counterpart of a lease under a contract of tenancy taking over possession of the property as lessee until the mortgage was redeemed. Admittedly Daulat Ram retained actual possession of his properties, the usufructuary mortgagee being in constructive possession thereof. Subsequently Daulat Ram sold his equity of redemption to the defendants in the mortgaged property, at the same time executed what was called a deed of relinquishment in their favour under which he relinquished and surrendered his possessory rights as lessee or 4enant in favour of the defendants. The defendants obtained possession of these plots and remained in possession until the institution of the suit. The present suit was filed by the zamindars against the mortgagees under Section 44, Agra Tenancy Act,...
Babu Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All754
ORDERAllsop, J.1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh at Etah has made a re-commendation that a sentence of Bs. 20 fine passed on Babu Earn for committing an offence under Section 411 or Section 403, I.P.C., should be set aside. The learned Magistrate who tried the case found that a buffalo had strayed from the house of its owner as alleged by him and that it was found several months afterwards in the house of Babu Ram. Suspicion was directed towards Babu Ram's brother who lives with him, but the brother maintained that Babu Ram had brought the buffalo to the house and that fact has now been accepted and is not denied by Babu Ram himself. Babu Ram's explanation was that he had bought the buffalo in good faith from a man called Jagannath. In support of this allegation he produced what purported to be a receipt or acknowledgment of the fact executed by Jagannath. This receipt was written by Wazir Khan, a Municipal clerk and upon it there was a thumb impression which was alle...
Sibte HusaIn and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937All785
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Mainpuri. An application was made to the police who reported to the Magistrate that there was a danger of a breach of the peace over a dispute about some constructions which had been made in a place which was alleged to be a public lane, and suggesting that an order should be passed under the provisions of Section 147, Criminal P.C., After the report had been made, a private person, Ali Ahmed, made an application that proceedings should be taken under Section 133, Criminal P.C., The Magistrate then passed an order that he would proceed under the section and not under Section 147. Bohra Ghainsukh who had made the constructions went to the Magistrate's Court in answer to a notice and stated that the lane was not public property but was the property either of himself or of the zamindar. Proceedings continued for some time owing to applications for transfer and other matters and eventually orders were passed by a Magist...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »