Allahabad Court December 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.
Firm Sukhanand Mathura Prasad Vs. Firm Ram Gopal Girja Sanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All336
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court holding that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain his suit and directing that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff by the trial Court for presentation to the proper Court. The objection taken by the defendant to jurisdiction was that he was an agriculturist residing within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Kaimganj in Farrukhabad District, and the suit had been tried by the Honorary Bench of Munsifs in Farrukhabad whose jurisdiction did not extend to Kaimganj. The plea was taken under Section 7, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act of 1934. That Section refers only to suits for recovering an unsecured loan against an agriculturist. The present suit is brought on the basis of bahikhata accounts for goods purchased by the defendant through the commission agency of the plaintiff. It has been held by a learned single Judge of this Court in Kincha Mal v. Khub Ram : AIR1937Al...
Uma Shanker Rai Vs. Ram Agyan Thakur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All231
Verma, J.1. This petition in revision arises out of an application made in the Court below by the respondents, Ram Agyan Thakur and others, under Sections 151, 152 and 153, Civil P.C., praying that a mistake, which, it was alleged, had crept into a simple mortgage deed executed in their favour and was also to be found in the plaint of the suit filed by them for the enforcement of that mortgage as well as in the decree, preliminary and final, passed in the suit, be corrected. The application has been granted by the Court below. The petitioner for revision before us, Uma Shankar Rai, is a subsequent transferee from the mortgagor. On 19th July 1916 one Bhagirathi Rai borrowed a sum of Rs. 615 from the predecessor-in-title of the decree-holders and executed u, deed, of simple mortgage in his favour hypothecating certain property which was described thus, 'Hissa zail mai zamin abadi, party, mazrua, ghair mazrua, dih, basgit...' At the foot of the deed she specification of the property was g...
Mahboob Khan Vs. Shaikh Majid HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All241
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by Mahboob Khan, a judgment-debtor, against an order in appeal of the Civil Judge of Jaunpur. The facts are that the Municipal Board of Jaunpur had a decree against Mahboob Khan and put up some property of his for sale on 15th July 1936. Within a month of that sale on 11th August 1936 Mahboob Khan came to the Court with a form of tender for deposit of the sale price and 5 per cent, as required by Order 21, Rule 89 for the purpose of having the sale set aside. The Munsif signed the tender and Mahboob Khan took it to the Treasury and deposited the money. Some days later, on 21st August 1936, after a period of thirty days had expired, he made an application in writing setting out these facts. The matter eventually came before the Munsif before the sale was confirmed and the Munsif went into the question whether an oral application was made to him for setting aside the sale in addition to the tender and held that it had been made. He therefore accepted...
Lachham Singh Manral and anr. Vs. Jhagar Singh Manral and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All437
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Dhyan Singh Manral, defendant 1, and Lachham Singh Manral, defendant 6. The plaintiffs brought a suit for declaration of title in respect to certain property detailed at the foot of the plaint. They alleged that 'according to law and family custom the estate of an issueless cosharer devolved upon the full blood collaterals excluding the half blood collaterals,' that Mt. Kiri, the wife of Bhawan Singh, died in October 1932 and the plaintiffs and defendants 7 and 8, according to the pedigree printed at p. 7 of the paper-book, became entitled to the estate of Bhawan Singh in preference to defendants 1 to 6, but as the defendants had obtained a mutation order in their favour a cloud had been cast upon the plaintiffs' title and a suit for declaration became necessary. Defendants 7 and 8 were by an order dated 17th December 1934 transferred to the array of plaintiffs and became plaintiffs 10 and 11. Bhawan Singh is a descendant of Madho Singh and the plainti...
M. Brij Behari Lal Vs. Municipal Board of Jhansi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All212
Verma, J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in. a Small Cause Court suit which was transferred to and tried by the Mumsif of Jhansi. The claim was for the recovery of Rs. 35 as damages from the Municipal Board. The plaintiff alleged that no was the owner of a house within the Municipal limits, that the house was connected to the Municipal water main on 11th January 1936, that he received no water from 11th January 1936 to 4th February 1936, that he received an insufficient supply of water for some time thereafter and that he had in consequence to incur an expenditure of Rs. 35 in order to arrange for water supply to his house. In para. 4 of the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff was entitled to the supply of water for four hours in the morning from 6 A.M. to 10 A.M. and for another four hours in the evening from 2 P.M. to 6 P.M. according to Rule 3 of the rules framed by the Municipal Board of Jhansi under Section 235, U.P. Municipalities Act. The defendant Municipal Boar...
Emperor Vs. Gajadhar Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All247
Bennet, J.1. This is a case for contempt of Court against Mr. Gajadhar Prasad, M.L.A., on the complaint of the District Magistrate of Benares. There was a com. plaint made by one Behari against Ram Lachhan Singh on 3rd August 1938 to the District Magistrate and after police enquiry, which was against the complainant, a Magistrate ordered the issue of summons to the accused on 22nd September 1938 under Sections 447, 426 and 504, I.P.C. A letter dated 25th August 1938 but postmarked 12th September 1938 was sent by the pre. sent accused to the District Magistrate. This letter states that the case of Behari against Ram Lachhan Singh was a true case and that the District Magistrate should have a proper enquiry made by the C.I.D. and have the accused Ram Lachhan Singh punished if the matter was proved and that ho should also write to the zamindar not to keep an ox-convict and high-handed person, meaning the accused Ram Lachhan Singh. This letter was extremely objection-able and should not ha...
Mohammad Qudrat Ullah Khan Vs. Mohammad Samiullah Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All289
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against an order of remand. The suit was for the recovery of Bs. 650 as damages. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the defendant was not legally liable and did not try the remaining issues. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court on the preliminary point of the liability of the defendant and has remanded the case for the trial of the remaining issues.2. On 13th September 1920, the plaintiff executed a simple mortgage in favour of three brothers, Gulzari Lal, Het Ram and Khan Chand hypothecating certain property. On 27th July 1923 the plaintiff executed another simple mortgage in favour of one Jugul Kishore, mortgaging those very properties. On 26th March 1928, the plaintiff, along with two other persons, sold the property belonging to him, which was covered by the earlier mortgage deeds to the defendant. The entire sale consideration was a sum of Rs. 6500. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 20...
Ramanand Misir and anr. Vs. Ram Baran Chaube
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All331
Verma, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff in a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 710 on the basis of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 25th March 1933 for a principal amount of Rs. 500. There is a history behind this promissory note in suit which is given in detail in the plaint. It appears that on 29th June 1926 a deed of simple mortgage was executed by the defendant and certain other persons in order to secure a loan of Rs. 2200. The amount due under this simple mortgage by 25th March 1933, on account of principal and interest, was Rs. 5500. On that date, viz. 25th March 1933, the mortgagors discharged this liability of theirs under the mortgage of 29th June 1926 to the extent of Rs. 5000. Not being in a position to pay anything in cash, they executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on that date in respect of certain property and thereby the loan was agreed to be satisfied to the extent of Rs. 5000 A sum of Rs...
Shri Bhagwan Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All277
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court, Fatehabad, at Agra, dismissing his suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for damages, for wrongful detention of 26 baskets of bangles sent by him from Firozabad to Zamania. The delivery of the goods was not taken by the consignee. After some correspondence between the parties, the defendant railway wrote to the plaintiff on. 8th April 1936 to take delivery of the goods within 15 days from the receipt of the letter. Within this period the plaintiff sent his man to Zamania on 21st April 1936 to take delivery. On reaching there the plaintiff's man found that the goods had been sent by the railway authorities to the Lost Property Office, Howrah. The plaintiff wrote to the Chief Commercial Manager, who asked him to pay the railway freight from Zamania to Howrah and back from Tlowrah to Zamania and take delivery. The plaintiff refused to do so. He thereafter...
Qazi Nasir UddIn Haider Vs. Raghubir Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All339
Verma, J.1. The appellant before us is defendant 1 in the suit which was for the removal of certain pillars and wire fencing and for other reliefs on the allegation that the plaintiff had acquired by prescription a right of way over the land belonging to defendant 1 round which this fence had been put up by defendant 1. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit on a preliminary point, and the lower Appellate Court having disagreed with the first Court on that point, has remanded the case for the trial and decision of the other issues involved in it. The appeal before us is directed against the order of remand. The plaintiff and defendant 1 both own shops in a block of buildings, the plaintiff's shop lying to the extreme south and that of defendant 1 being on the extreme north, with the shop of a third person intervening between the two. The land which was enclosed by defendant 1 is situated immediately to the west of his shop and belongs to him.2. The case of the plaintiff is that...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »