Allahabad Court January 1938 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.
Raja Jaleshwari Pratap NaraIn Singh Vs. Pateshwari Baksh Singh and ors ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All345
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the Raja of Basti against a decree dismissing his suit for possession of a large number of villages, 29 in one group and 47 in another. The appeal has taken a long time because in the original suit there were 1004 defendants and in the appeal there are 648 respondents. The plaint sets out that the plaintiff is the owner of Raj Basti which is a very old and impartible Raj, and that the eldest son of the Raj a succeeds to the gaddi and gets the entire Raj and other sons who are called Babus are entitled to maintenance only, and when they become separate from the Raj they are given some property for their maintenance which is called Babuai right; that the Babu and his male descendants have a right to remain in possession thereof in order of succession, but they cannot transfer it and that if any Babu or any male descendant in any branch dies as a member of the divided Hindu family without leaving any male issue, his Babuai property reverts to the Raj...
S. FakhruddIn HusaIn Vs. Abdul Wahid
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All213
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Agra Tenancy Act (Act 3 of 1926) for the ejectment of the defendant-respondent from old plot 70 corresponding to the present plot 101 in village Harwara. It is now common ground that the plot is situated within the zamindari of the plaintiff-appellant and that there existed a grove on the said plot of which the defendant was recorded as a rent free grove holder. The plaintiff alleged that five or six years before the date of the suit the trees of the grove had been out away and the grove lost its character as such and that since then the position of the defendant was that of a non-occupancy tenant and he was therefore liable to ejectment. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds, but the only ground which found favour with the lower Appellate Court, and with which I am concerned in the present appeal, was that the defendant had acquired a prescriptive title to the plot in dispute by adverse possession for m...
Shib Charan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All220
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Shabjahanpur suggesting that the conviction of Shib Charan and three others under Section 353, I.P.C., should be set aside and that the sentences of fines of Rs. 30 which have been passed upon then should be remitted. The facts found are that a Sub-Inspector and some constables went to attach property in pursuance of a warrant drawn up under the provisions of Section 88, Criminal P.C., and that the accused persons attacked them in order to prevent attachment. The learned Judge has recommended that the convictions should be set aside because the warrant was illegal. He does not suggest that there was any illegality on the face of the warrant. He suggests that a warrant under Section 88 cannot be issued unless a proclamation has already been issued under Section 87, Criminal P.C. and says that there is no direct evidence to prove that any such proclamation was issued. He has overlooked the presumption of law, that the...
Roda Ram Vs. Mukand Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All212
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, J.1. This application in revision arises out of a suit under Section 33, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act and the sole question that arises for decision is whether or not the plaintiff was an agriculturist as defined by the said Act. It appears from the finding of the Court below that the plaintiff is the owner of two houses and of the sites thereof within the ambit of the Allahabad Municipality. The area of the sites is recorded in the khasra as 2 biswas and the whole of it is entered as abadi land, It has however been found by the Court below that there is a small kitchen garden on a portion of the site and there are certain flower plants on the same. The Government revenue assessed on the 2 biswaa land is annas 4 pies 3. The learned Judge of the Court below held that as the plaintiff paid the revenue just mentioned, he was an agriculturist in view of the provisions of Section 2(2)(a), Agriculturists Relief Act which provides that 'agriculturist' meansa person who, i...
Daroga Gobind Rao and anr. Vs. Mohar Gobind Rao and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All481
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose plaint was rejected on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped with proper court, fee. In the plaint the plaintiffs prayed for the following relief:It may be declared under the decree that the final decree No. 129 of 1930 dated 28th November 1931 in which preliminary decree, dated 30th March 1931 is merged is altogether ineffectual and null and void.2. In the Court below an objection was taken by the principal contesting defendant that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs was inadequate, and the Court below thought it proper to decide the question of court-fees first. By an order dated 11th July 1934 that Court held that the plaintiffs ought to pay ad valorem court-fee and time was given to the plaintiffs to pay the same. On 23rd July 1934 the plaintiffs applied for a reconsideration of the order, but on 25th July 1934 the Court said that there was 'no reason to review and reconsider its former views,' but time was extended...
Gopal Das Vs. Jagannath Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All266
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is defendant 1's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and defendant 2 Sudarshan Lal, respondent, by the plaintiffs respondents for damages, recovery of infringing copies and an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' copyright. The plaintiffs are the printers and publishers of a book, Ex. 1, entitled 'Sachitra Bara Kok Shastra'. It was printed for the first time in 1928 and has run into four editions since. Defendant 1 printed and published Ex. 2, called 'Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra' in 1930. Defendant 2 is said to be the author of it. The plaintiffs' case is that Ex. 2 is a colourable imitation of their book Ex. 1 and has infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in Ex. 1. The defendants admitted the plaintiffs' copyright in Ex. 1, but not in the passages and ideas which they (plaintiffs) had bor. rowed from previous works. They contended that they had not infringed the plaintiffs' copyright. The trial Court found that the pla...
Pran Singh Vs. Mangal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All208
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a pre-emption suit. Both the plaintiff and the defendant vendee were on the data of the sale sought to be pre-empted cosharers in the mahal in which the property sold is situated, but the plaintiff claimed a preferential right of pre-emption as against the vendee on the allegation that ha was a cosharer in a larger division of the mahal of which the property sold was a subdivision, and, as such, came within Glass 3 of the pre-emption prescribed by Section 12, Pre-emption Act. The defendant vendee on the other hand contended that both he and the plaintiff were cosharers in the mahal and came within the category of Glass 4 of the pre-emption provided by Section 12. The trial Court accepted the allegation of the plaintiff and decreed the suit but, on appeal by the defendant, the lower Appellate Court upheld the contention of the defendant vendee and dismissed the suit.2. The property sold is situated in village Supa in mahal Nanhey. This m...
Mt. Komal Vs. Gur Charan Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All242
Bajpai, J.1. This is a first appeal by Mt. Komal and connected with it is First Appeal No. 158 of 1934 by Khelari Das, continued after his death by Mt. Basmati, his widow. Both appeals arise out of a suit brought by Mt. Komal against Khelari Das, defendant 1, and Gurcharan Prasad and others, defendants 2 to 7, the representatives of Kai Bahadur Batuk Prasad, and' it will be convenient to dispose of the two appeals by a single judgment. The suit was for a declaration that one third share in each of the properties mentioned at the foot of the plaint, which had been mortgaged by Khelari Das to the late Rai Bahadur Batuk Prasad, was owned and possessed by the plaintiff as the widow of Jangi Lal deceased and was not liable to sale to satisfy the mortgage debts for which the above mentioned share was aA.I.R.lleged to be liable under decree No. Ill of 1927 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bonares as modified by decree No. 266 of 1928 of the High Court at Allahabad and that the said de...
L. Shanker Lal and anr. Vs. Rana Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All217
Bennet, Ag. C.J.1. This second appeal-raises two questions of limitation, and the second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench for decision. The plaintiffs sued on 3rd January 1933, on a promissory note-executed in their favour by the defendants' on 29th July 1927. The note was payable, on demand and under Article 73 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act, Act 9 of 1908, the suit should be brought within three years from the date of the promissory note. Nothing was paid by the executants towards principal or interest. The estate of the executants was taken under the Court of Wards by the Collector and a notice was published on 3rd August 1929, under Section 17, United Provinces Act 4 of 1912, the court of Wards Act, calling on persons having, claims against the estate to notify the claims to the Collector. The plaintiffs notified their claim and the Collector allowed the claim under Section 19 on 13th October 1930, and the Board of Revenue confirmed this order on 30th October 1930. But the claim w...
Kedar NaraIn Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, C.P. and U.P.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1938
Reported in: [1938]6ITR157(All)
BAJPAI, J. - This is a reference under Sec. 66(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces. The facts as found by the revenue authorities, may be summarized :-The Ausanganj Estate is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, Ghazipur. The proprietor of the estate and the ward is Mst. Rani Dulhin Ram Kunwar, who is the widow of Babu Sri Narain Singh, the last male owner of the estate. The assessee is Babu Kedar Narain Singh, the daughters son of the Rani and he by virtue of his relationship is regarded as the prospective heir to the estate. He has been assessed to income-tax for the year ending the 31st March 1934 on an income of Rs. 6,498 along with other income about which there is no dispute. It is, however, said that the sum mentioned above ought not to have been included in the income of the assessee for the year in dispute. This amount is paid to him under Sec. 25 of the Court of Wards Act. That provision reads as follows ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »