Allahabad Court September 1937 Judgments
Ram Chander Singh and ors. Vs. Nija and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All65; 173Ind.Cas.651
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff, respondents for possession over 8 biswas of land in plot No. 84 by removal of the construction alleged to have been made by the defendants. Plot No. 81 is the occupancy holding of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' case was that without any right the defendants who are some of the landholders have built a house on 8 biswas. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by Section 99, Agra Tenancy Acts, and limitation. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the suit is not barred by Section 99, Agra Tenancy Act, as the defendants do not represent the whole body of landholders. They have relied on a ruling under the old Tenancy Act of 1901. Section 99 of the present Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) has much widened the scope. Section 79 of the old Tenancy Act was confined to an ejectment by a landholder, while Section 99 of the present Act relates to a wrongful ejectment ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mukand Sarup Vs. Th. Krishna Chandra Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All86; 173Ind.Cas.654
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the Civil Judge of Bulandahahr, confirming a previous order passed by his predecessor staying a suit pending before him. The stay was ordered under Section 7, Encumbered Estates Act as the defendants had represented to the Court that they had applied to the Collector under Section 6 and that their application had been forwarded to the Special Judge. The suit has been brought by the plaintiff, appellant for three reliefs : (1) for possession, (2) mesne profits with effect from 1333 Fasli, and (3) Rs. 2500, with interest, being the profits due to him from the defendants in respect of 1332 Fasli. It is alleged in the plaint that the parties to the suit are mortgagees under a deed dated 17th August 1904 executed by persons who are no parties to this litigation. By an agreement dated 21st October 1924, it was stipulated that the plaintiff would be given by the defendants possession...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Ram Saran Das and anr. Vs. Lala Banwari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All98; 173Ind.Cas.729
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., and is directed against what purports to be a simple money decree passed in favour of a mortgagee who had obtained preliminary and final decrees for sale on foot of a mortgage which however proved to be infructuous as the result of a suit brought by one of the members of the joint Hindu family of the mortgagors. The facts, so far as they are material for the purposes of the case before us, may be briefly stated: Ram Saran Das and his son Lachmi Narain, who are the applicants before us, executed a deed of simple mortgage on 17th May 1926 in favour of the plaintiff opposite party. The latter instituted a suit for the enforcement of the mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree which was in due course followed by a final decree. Before the decree could be executed, another son of Ram Saran Das, who had not joined in the execution of the mortgage deed instituted a suit impugning the validity of the mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!L. Shanker Lal Dahania Vs. L. Balkishan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All57
Ganga Nath, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1142 of 1935 has been heard and disposed of with this appeal. Both are defendant's appeals and arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff, respondents against him and the Municipal Board, respondent 2, for damages and arrears of pay. This appeal arises out of Suit No. 386 of 1933 which was brought by Sunder Lal who was Toll Superintendent. The other appeal arises out of Suit No. 383 of 1933 which was brought by Mohammad Mustaqim who was Assistant Toll Clerk, In April 1933 Sunder Lal completed his 60 years and Mohammad Mustaqim's age was above 61 years. On 25th March 1933 the Municipal Board of Secunderabad gave one year's extension from 1st April 1933 to 31st March 1934 to both under resolutions Nos. 33 and 34. The appellant who is the Chairman of the Board wrote to the Commissioner to whom the resolutions had been sent that these persons were unfit for service. On an enquiry being made by the Commissioner through the District Magistrate, the Com...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Chand and anr. Vs. L. Babu Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All56; 173Ind.Cas.895
ORDERThom, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application in civil I revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The application arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land and demolition of certain structures erected by the defendants thereon. Early in the proceedings, parties agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed and reference was made. In due course the arbitrator issued his award. The award was in favour of the defendants, the plaintiffs preferred objection thereto. The learned Munsif sustained these objections and remitted the case for reconsideration by the arbitrator. Thereafter, the plaintiffs moved the Court for permission to withdraw the suit and bring a fresh suit. This permission was granted. Against the order granting permission the present application in re-vision has been filed.2. I am satisfied that the order of the learned Munsif was without jurisdiction. The parties had contracted to refer their dispute to an arbitrator. The reference to ar...
Tag this Judgment!Gajraj Singh Vs. Tej Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All55; 173Ind.Cas.884
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal and arises from a suit under Section 227, Agra Tenancy Act, which provides for suits for settlement of accounts between co-sharers in a mahal. The plaintiff is admittedly a lambardar. He alleged in his plaint that the defendants were in possession of sir and khudkasht lands the estimated rent of which is far in excess of the total amount of profits to which they are entitled. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed the excess. When the case went to trial, the plaintiff made a grievance of the fact that other co-sharers had sued him and obtained decrees for their shares of profits, with the result that the plaintiff had to part with what would have enabled him to recoup himself to the extent of his share in the profits of the mahal. His case was that if the excess payable by the defendants is recovered, he (the plaintiff) would be compensated for the loss of profits occasioned to him; in other words, whatever is payable by the defendants a...
Tag this Judgment!Sultan Ahmad Khan Vs. Sirajul Haque and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All170
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Sultan Ahmad Khan, minor, through his next friend Mohammad Raza, and arises out of a suit brought by him for the recovery of possession of certain immovable properties mentioned at the foot of the plaint by avoidance of a document dated 23rd December 1927. It is conceded that if this document is binding on the plaintiff his suit cannot succeed. The transactions anterior to the aforesaid document are mentioned in the plaint and the disputes that arose in connexion with those anterior transactions are mentioned in the deed itself, but in order to make our judgment intelligible it will be necessary to state them in some detail. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court in a very perfunctory judgment which hardly does any justice to the complicated questions of fact and law that arise in the case, and hence the present appeal which has been argued ably by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. At the very outset it would be convenient to set forth the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashraf Vs. L. Saith Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All47; 173Ind.Cas.136
Allsop, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicant put in an application under Section 4, United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act. A notice was issued to persons having claims in respect of debts to put in written statements of their claims within a certain period. The opposite party put in no claim within the period specified. Thereafter he made an application saying that he was delayed for certain private reasons, and was given a further period of two months, as allowed by Sub-section (3) of Section 8. He failed to present his written statement within that further period. The result was that the Special Judge held under Section 13 of the Act that the debt alleged to be due to the opposite party was deemed to have been duly discharged. There was an appeal against this finding and the order based upon it. It was held in appeal by the Additional District Judge of Moradabad that further time could have been allowed to the appellant and should have been allowed. The Additional...
Tag this Judgment!Firm Brij Kishore Ram Sarup Vs. Sheo Charan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All69; 173Ind.Cas.853
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for rendition of accounts of a partnership business, which is alleged by the plaintiff to have been previously dissolved. In the alternative, the plaintiff prays for dissolution of the partnership. The suit was brought in the firm name, Brij Kishore Ram Sarup. According to the plaintiff, the members of this firm were Ram Sarup, Lachmi Narain alias Minnu, and Lachmi Narain, son of Hem Raj. The plaint was signed and verified by Lachmi Narain, son of Horn Raj. The sole defendant impleaded in the case was Sheo Charan Lal, respondent in this Court. It is alleged in the plaint that on Pus Sudi 12, Section 1985, the defendant approached the plaintiff firm and proposed that the parties might enter into a partnership for purchase and sale of grain at Sagar, and that the partners of the plaintiff firm agreed to the defendant's proposal and a partnership was brought about between the plaintiff and the defendant. T...
Tag this Judgment!Kedar Nath Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1938All48
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal against an order under Section 5, Clause (2), Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Court from whose order this appeal has been filed was the Court of Small Causes. It directed that the decree might be paid in certain instalments and the complaint is that these instalments do not extend over a sufficiently long period. The question before us, in the first place, is whether an appeal lies to this Court. It has been held that the Court of a Civil Judge is immediately subordinate to the Court of the District Judge; but the argument here is that this is a Court of Small Causes and no appeal from it lies to the District Judge. It is therefore urged that the Court of Small Causes is immediately subordinate to this Court which may interfere with its decision by way of revision.2. We do not think that this is the proper criterion for deciding what is meant by subordination according to the terms of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. Under Section 3, Civil P.C., the C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »