Allahabad Court November 1938 Judgments
Goswami Bishambhar Lal Vs. Goswami Brij Ratan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All203
Verma, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit which has been dismissed by beth the Courts below on the ground that it is barred by the rule of res judicata. The Huit was in respect of a house and the allegation of the plaintiff briefly was that the house had beon mortgaged with possession to one Had ha Govind in the year 1846 and that the rights of the mortgagee now vested in the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7. Defendant 4 is the father of the plaintiff appellant and defendants 5 to 7 are his cousins and are members of the joint Hindu family to which the plaintiff and his father belonged, it was further alleged on behalf of the plaintiff that in the year 1921 a suit, being Suit No. 115 of 1921, had been brought by defendant 1, Goswami Bisheshar Lal, against a number of persons among whom was Madhusudan Lal, grandfather of the plaintiff, claiming, among other reliefs, possession over the house in question on the ground that the defendants of that suit wore not entitled to its...
Tag this Judgment!Lachmi Rai and anr. Vs. Srideo Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All248
Bajpai, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before us. The plaintiffs brought a suit for the recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a bend and of another sum of money on the basis of a sarkhat. The trial Court decreed the suit so far as the bend money was concerned but dismissed the suit so far as the sarkhat money was concerned. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit for the recovery of the money due on the sarkhat as well.2. The contention before us is that the suit for the recovery of the money on the basis of the sarkhat has been wrongly decreed by the lower Appellate Court. There is no controversy before us so far as the money due on the bend is concerned. It appears that the sarkhat, as originally drawn up, did not contain any reference as to the payment of interest. An alteration - and we may take it a material alteration - was made some time afterwards by the plaintiffs without reference to the defendants. It was contended in the Courts b...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Gorakhpur Vs. Budhu Kalwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All327
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. In the view that have take it is unnecessary to decide the points that have been raised and ably argued by Mr. Khwaja, the learned junior Counsel on behalf of the Collector of Gorakhpur, the appellant in the present appeal the facts that led to this appeal are as follows : A suit for partition of certain properties alleged to be joint family properties was filed in the Court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur in forma pauperis by Budhu Kalwar, one of the respondents in the present appeal. The defendant to the suit was Khaksa Kalwar, the other respondent in the appeal. It was alleged in the plaint that Khaksa had forcibly dispossessed Budhu from the joint family properties that were specified at the foot of the plaint and accordingly the prayer contained in the plaint was that the plaintiff be put in possession of his half share in those properties after partitioning the same. The suit was valued at Rs. 4000. The application of Budhu to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ghulam and ors. Vs. Ram Bhajan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All226
Bajpai, J.1. Three suits for pre-emption were filed in the trial Court by three different sets of plaintiffs, but they all related to a sale dated 4th June 1932 by Babu Ram in favour of Ram Bhajan. The property sold was three plots of land Nos. 989, 369 and 792. These three plots lay in different pattis and each of the three plaintiffs alleged that he was a co-sharer in one or other of these three pattis and sought to pre-empt that portion of the property which lay in his patti. The vendee was not a cosharer in the pattis, but was a cosharor in the mahal alone, and on this ground the plaintiffs in the three suits alleged that they were entitled to preference as against the vendee. The trial Court did not consolidate the suits but passed separate decrees in each suit, although the principal judgment was delivered in only one suit. By the judgment of the trial Court the suits were decreed and proper orders passed for the payment of proportionate amounts of consideration. On appeal the lo...
Tag this Judgment!Bhola Nath and anr. Vs. Shiv Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All253
Bennet, J.1. These are three connected second appeals brought by defendants (1) Bhola Nath and (2) Sri Thakur Radha Krishnaji Maharaj through Bhola Nath against the plaintiffs. The plaintiff brought three suits for pre-emption and those suits were dismissed by the trial Court but decreed by the lower Appellate Court. The suits were brought on the following three sale deeds by Nanhay, Dhandoo, Kundan and others in favour of Bhola Nath, appellant 1, and zamindari shares were sold in mahal Sookha of mauza Jagnair : (1) sale deed dated 22nd May 1933, for Rupees 400, (2) sale-deed dated 1st June 1933 for Rs. 200 and (3) sale deed dated 29th June 1933 for Rs. 200. The plaintiffs brought their three suits for pre-emption on 12th May 1934, against the vendee, Bhola Nath, who was admittedly a person who has no zamindari share in mauza Jagnair. The plaintiffs have zamindari shares in mauza Jagnair but in another mahal. The defendant Bhola Nath pleaded in his written statement that prior to the s...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Savitri Devi Vs. Dwarka Prasad Bhatya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All305
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The dispute in the present litigation is about the copyright of a Hindi book named Abhinava Nighantu, a book on the Indian Materia Mediea. The book wan written in the nineties of the last contrary by a resident of Muttra District, named Chaubey Datt Ram, the predecessor-in-title of Savitri Devi, plaintiff-appellant. The first edition of the book was printed and published by Datt Ram in the year 1893 and a second and enlarged edition of the book was printed and published by him in the year 1899. Datt Ram died in the year 1907 leaving Narain Dutt, his son, as his sole legal representative. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was filed by Narain Datt and he prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from printing and publishing the book, for accounts and for damages, etc. on the allegation that the defendants had infringed his copyright in the book. Narain Datt died during the pendency of the suit in the Court below leaving a will by which he beq...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All166
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares. The applicant Ganesh was adjudicated insolvent on 25th May 1935. Part of his property was a flour mill. It has been found that the applicant removed essential parts of the machine on 18th October 1935. The Courts have found that he did this fraudulently with intent to diminish the sum to be divided among his creditors. He has consequently been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 69(c)(ii), Provincial Insolvency Act, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.2. It may be mentioned that Ganesh was the defendant in a suit instituted on 7th December 1933 by Ram Nandan on the basis of a promissory note. In the course of this suit, the flour mill was attached before judgment on 11th February 1934. A decree was obtained by Ram Nandan against Ganesh in August 1934 but in the meanwhile on 8th August Ganesh had put in his p...
Tag this Judgment!Har Dayal Vs. Babu Ram Manohar Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All206
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for profits under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. The suit was instituted by two persons, Ram Manohar and Bhagwat Prasad. Ram Manohar is a cosharer and Bhagwat Prasad was his thekadar, the theka being for the years in suit, namely 1339, 1340 and 1341 Fasli. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs; and an appeal by the defendant has been dismissed by the learned District Judge. The first plea which is taken before me is that the suit of the thekadar is barred by limitation and that the cosharer-lessor has no right of suit. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that plaintiff 1, namely the cosharer, had a right of suit, but that plaintiff 2, who is the thekadar, had no right of suit. The relevant Sections of the Agra Tenancy Act are Sections 199, 201 and 202. Section 199 of the Act defines a thekadar as a farmer or other lessee of proprietary rights in land, and in particular of th...
Tag this Judgment!Rahim Baksh Vs. Municipal Board of Bulandshahr
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All213
Verma, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant for the recovery of a certain sum of money as damages on account of injuries sustained on account of an accident with which the plaintiff met. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. The case of the plaintiff was that he was a tenant of a house belonging to Sm. Ram Devi in a certain mohalla within the municipal limits of the town of Bulandshahr, that immediately to the south of that house there was a drain belonging to the Municipal Board, that to the south of that drain there was a road, also belonging to the Municipal Board, that the Municipal Board did not keep the road in proper condition, nor had made proper arrangements for lighting it, that on the night of 3rd June 1932 the plaintiff fell into the drain because the Municipal Board had not erected anything in the nature of a boundary wall or 'munder' between the drain and. the road and because there was insufficient light and also because t...
Tag this Judgment!Kunj Behari Lal Vs. Smt. Jamna Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All235
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The plaintiff Mt. Jamna Kunwar alleged that her husband Kunj Behari Lal and Ajodhia Prasad were partners in a firm of commission agents. She further averred that on her husband's death she had been taken into partnership and that defendants Kunj Behari Lal and Ajodhia Prasad undertook to render accounts, but that Kunj Behari Lal who apparently conducted the business of the partnership had ceased transacting business. In these circumstances she claimed rendition of accounts on the allegation that the firm having ceased to do business the partnership had dissolved. Ajodhia Prasad died during the pendency of the suit. The main defence to the suit is that one Ram Sarup who was also a partner had not been impleaded. This defence however was not preferred in the appellant's first written statement. The plea was subsequently taken. The plaintiff denied that Ram Sarup was a partner, but since the objecti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »