Allahabad Court November 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.
B. Ram Chander Vs. Firm Seth Kishan Lal Babu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All179
Verma, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 307-12-9 principal together with Rs. 292.3.3 as interest total Rs. 600. Both the Courts below have agreed in decreeing the suit for the recovery of the principal amount alone, viz. Rs. 307-12-9. There is no cross-objection before us on behalf of plaintiff's firm with regard to the dismissal of its claim for interest. The case of the plaintiff was that there were dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant from 11th December 1926 to 11th March 1929, as the result of which the sum of Rs. 307-12-9 was found to be the balance due to the plaintiff from the defendant. These dealings consisted, on the one hand, of the purchase on the defendant's part of the sugar and other goods belonging to the plaintiff and on the other, of the sale of 246 bags of Gur belonging to the plaintiff through the defendant acting as the agent of the plaintiff. There is no dispute as to the figures, and the only ...
Benarsi Das Vs. Municipal Board and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All310
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by Benarsi Das, plaintiff, late Head Master of the Primary School, Kathdarwaza, Moradabad, against defendant 1, the Municipal Board, Moradabad, through its Chairman, and defendant 2, M. Mohammad Nasim Khan, Executive Officer. The suit was one for wrongful dismissal and was dismissed by the lower Court, the learned civil Judge of Moradabad. Two points were taken, firstly, whether the suit was barred by Section 326(3). U.P. Municipalities Act 1916. The suit was filed on 10th July 1934 and it was admitted by counsel that 22nd January 1934 was the date when the plaintiff was asked to make over charge at Moradabad. The suit was filed against the Board in the first instance and therefore as against the Board it was within the six months prescribed by the Section. But the Executive Officer was not added until an application dated 28th August 1935. The suit against the Executive Officer was therefore barred by the rule of six months under Section 326(3). The...
Umrai Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Intizami Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All176
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. In the trial Court the plaintiffs and defendants on mo to an agreement on 9th August 1934 winch was embodied in the robkar of the Court (paper No. 70) that B. Madan Mohan Lal Mukhtar, should be appointed as referee ('Munhasar aleh'), that the case would be decided according to whatever statement he made and that that statement would to binding on the parties as an admission under Section 20, Evidence Act. The Court sent for B. Madan Mohan Lal and recorded his statement on 10th September 1934. He made a statement that the plaintiffs have no interest in the property in dispute and defendants have an interest in it and are in possession of it and the suit should be dismissed and parties should boar their own costs. On the same date, 10th September 1934, the Court passed an order dismissing the suit, parties to bear their own costs. An appeal was taken by the plainti...
Ziaul Rahman and ors. Vs. Mt. Ganga Dei and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All323
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendants 1 to 4 out of six defendants. The suit was brought by Mt. Ganga Dei, widow of Shankar Lal, as the sole plaintiff for enforcement of a hypothecation bond dated 25th November 1927, executed by Dr. Gul Ahmad, father of the six defendants, of whom three are sons and three are daughters. The bond was for Rs. 15,000 sat 13 annas per cent, per mensem compound interest with six monthly rests. The property mortgaged consisted of house property in the city of Meerut. Dr. Gul Ahmad is dead the lower Court decreed the suit in lull for the plaintiff.2. The main point taken by the appellant-defendants is that they are agriculturists and are on titled to the benefits of Sections 5 and 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Section 5 to which they refer is not correct and Section 3 is intended. This is the main argument in the appeal before us. In Section 3 there is provision for the Court to allow instalments in passing a decree, and in Section 30 t...
Rameshwar Prasad and anr. Vs. Gaya Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All154
Verma, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in a suit in which the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that certain property was not attach, able and saleable in execution of a money deeree obtained by defendants 1 and 2 against the other defendants. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it.2. The material facts are these. Defendants 3 to 6 were indebted to a number of persons, the present appellants, and the plaintiff-respondents being among the creditors. The appellants had obtained a decree for the recovery of a certain sum of money from the Court of Small Causes against defendants 3 to 6 in Suit No. 1460 of 1932. The plaintiffs on the other hand entered into negotiations with defendants 3 to 6 for the sale of the latter's property in liquidation of the debts due to the former. According to the finding of fact recorded by the Court below a sale deed was executed by defendants 3 to 6 in favour of the plaintiffs on 5th Jul...
Abdul Majeed and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All182
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Magistrate of Benares under the provisions of Section 144, Criminal P.C. This order prevented the applicants from interfering with the performance of certain Taziadari ceremonies by Shamsul Haq and others on a platform in front of a building which was, at least at one time, known as the Imambara of Allah Rakhu. It seems to be admitted that Allah Rakhu built this Imambara many years ago and that the applicants are his descendants through one Shah Mohammad. In the year 1928, two Sunnis and two Shias instituted a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., against some of the applicants. There were two sets of defendants in that suit, one alleged to be the descendants of Shah Mohammad and the other alleged to have been entrusted by a descendant of Shah Mohammad's with the management of a trust created by him. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was that the defendants had prevented the performance of...
Har NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Nand Ram Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All197
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendant 1, Har Narain Singh, and defendant 2, Girja Saran Singh, against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts granting possession to the plaintiffs of property in list B of the plaint. The family pedigree is as follows: DEBI SARAN SINGH | |--------------------------------------------------| | |Mt. Lachminau=Mahabir Singh=Mt. Lakhpati died 1900 Ram Dahal Singhdied 1900 | died 1882 | (widow No. 2) =Mt. Jamna Kunwarwidow No.1) | | died 1898 (widow) | ---------| | | | Mt. Deo Kali deceased | Mt. Ram Anandi daughter daughter married to | died on 13th February 1933. Hirday Narain Singh | | | Har Narain Singh, | defendant 1 |-------------------------------------------------------------| | | |Mt. Unccta daughter Bhola Singh = Mt. Jogta Mt. Abalkha daughter died 1901 (predeceased Mahabir Singh) married to Lal Makund Singh widow | | | | Mt. Patto deceased daughter | married to Girja Saran Singh | defendant 2. | |-----------------------------------...
Lala Babu Ram and anr. Vs. B. Nityanand Mathur
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All168
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The facts of the case are set out in detail in the order of the learned single Judge and we do not consider it necessary to recapitulate them here. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this appeal that it has been, found by the lower Appellate Court, and the finding cannot now be disturbed, that at the instance of Ramji Mal proceedings under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, were directed against the plaintiff. There can be no dispute now that in attempting to have these proceedings initiated Ramji Mal was actuated by malice. The allegations which, he made against the plaintiff were false and it has been held that they were made maliciously. The learned single Judge has in these circumstances held that an action for damages for malicious prosecution was maintainable and he has awarded the sum of Rs. 600 to the plaint...
Sri Thakurji Maharaj and anr. Vs. Sujan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All158
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 5 as well as defendant 4 and arises out of a suit for pre-emption which has been decreed by both the Courts below. The only point involved in the appeal is one of limitation. On 13th July 1932 a sale deed was executed by defendants 1 to 3 in respect of certain property in favour of Hira Lal, defendant 4, and appellant 2. The suit for pre-emption which has given rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents on 12th July 1933 impleading Hira Lal alone, claiming that they had preferential rights of purchase as against Hira Lal, and praying for a decree for possession by right of pre-emption in respect of the sale deed of 13th July 1932 in their favour. In his written statement Hira Lal alleged that he was no longer in possession of the property in question as he had by a deed of waqf dated 22nd October 1932 transferred his entire property, including the property which he had purchased under the sale deed in question to Sri Thakurji ...
Lala Asa Ram and anr. Vs. Lala Ram Chander
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All161
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order of a single Judge of this Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit in which they sought for a declaration that they had acquired a title by adverse possession to a plot of land 8 biswas in extent, namely plot No. 330 in Mahal Baru Mal, mauza Kota. The trial Court dismissed the suit. I n appeal however the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur reversed the order of the learned Munsif and granted decree as Sirayed for. The defendant came in second Appeal to this Court and the learned single Judge has allowed the appeal and restored the order of the learned Munsif dismissing the suit. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. The title to the land in question is in the defendant. It is a matter of admission however that for a long period of years the plaintiffs had tethered their cattle on the land, and further they had been in the, habit of storing logs of wood thereon. Furthermore, some considerable time ago the plaintiffs, appa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »