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.
Rahim Bukhsh Vs. Kishen Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All368
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing his suit. The following pedigree is relevant:Amir Bakhsh(died 50 years ago)-----------------------------------| | | |Azim Uddin Wazir Saini Rahim Bakhah(deceased) (deceased) (deceased) (Plaintifi) |Mt. Saliman (Defendant 2.)2. Azim Uddin executed a simple mortgage in favour of defendant 1, Kishan Lal. After the death of Azim Uddin his property, which was one-fourth of the property of his father, was inherited by his widow, Mt. Saliman, and his brother, Rahim Bakhsh, the plaintiff. Defendant 1, Kishen Lal, then brought Suit No. 274 of 1927 against the plaintiff and defendant 2, Mt. Saliman, as the legal representatives of Azim Uddin, the mortgagor, and the suit was for sale on the simple mortgage of the property, the one-fourth share of Azim Uddin which had been mortgaged. The court passed a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property. In the sale proclamation, the mortgaged ...
District Board Vs. CaptaIn H. Trotter
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All389
Verma, J.1. This is a petition in revision by the plaintiff against a decree of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Dehra Dun. The suit was for the recovery of a total sum of Rs. 547-6-0 alleged to be due from the defendant as tax on circumstances and property for a certain number of years. The defendant raised various pleas in defence, but we are concerned with only two of them, namely, (1) that the defendant 'did not come within the purview of Section 114, Clause (a), District Boards Amendment Act,' and (2) that, at any rate, a portion of the claim was barred by time. The learned Judge has dismissed the entire suit.2. The learned Judge has held in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant assessee, residing as he does within the 'rural areas' in question, is not entitled to say that he is outside the purview of Section 114(a), U.P. District Boards Act (10 of 1922). He has however dismissed the suit because, to put it briefly, in his opinion the tax is unjust and would ...
Mt. Izhar Fatma Bibi and ors. Vs. Mt. Ansar Fatma Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All348
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession of 21/48 sihams in certain zamindari property and a small house specified at the foot of the plaint has been dismissed by the Court below. It might be convenient at the very outset to set forth a small pedigree. Chaudhry Saiyed Ali Azhar=Mt. Ansar Fatma Bibi (defendant 1) ------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | Muhammad Mazhar= Mt. Anwar Mt. Izhar Mt. Saghir Mt. AzizMt. Fatma Sughra Fatma Bibi Fatma Bibi Fatma Bibi Fatma BibiBibi alias Abbasi defendant 2 plaintiff 1 plaintiff 2 plaintiff 3Bibi defendant 3 |Mohammad Azhar.2. The plaintiffs to the suit were Mt. Izhar Fatma Bibi, Mt. Saghir Fatma Bibi and Mt. Aziz Fatma Bibi. The defendants to the suit were Mt. Fatma Sughra Bibi defendant 3 (who might be said to be the principal contesting defendant), Mt. Ansar Fatma Bibi, defendant 1, and Mt. Anwar Patina Bibi, defendant 2. Mt. Anwar Fatma Bibi is married to Ejaz Husain, son of...
Gaya Prasad Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All263
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant Gaya Prasad against a decree for ejectment of the defendant from a certain portion of nazul plot No. 663 enclosed in red lines in mohalla Colonelganj, Allahabad city, which plot appertains to mauza Fatehpur-Bichhua. It is common ground that this portion in red lines was granted by the Secretary of State on 1st February 1887 to one William Barrett who executed a kabuliat on that date. The claim for the Secretary of State was that William Barrett died some fifteen years ago and was succeeded by his heir a Miss Jane Bailey and on 22nd July 1928 Miss Bailey executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant Gaya Prasad and that Gaya Prasad had dug foundations for a building on this plot of land. The claim for the plaintiff was that the transfer was illegal and alternatively if it were found that the transferor was entitled to transfer as a grove-holder, then there should be ejectment, under the provisions of Section 84, Agra Tenancy Act, o...
Lala Dwarka Das Vs. Godhana and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All313
Verma, J.1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the suit which was for partition of his share in certain buildings. The plaintiff has purchased the share of one of the members of the family which owned this house. A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 30th January 1933. There was an appeal against that decree by the plaintiff and the Appellate Court made (certain modifications in the preliminary decree. On the record going back to the trial Court for the preparation of a final decree, the amin was appointed as a commissioner for partition and he submitted a report on 14th February 1934. In this report he valued the entire property at a certain figure and made suggestions as to the) manner in which the partition should be carried out. The plaintiff objected to this report. The defendants however put in an application at this stage under Section 4, Partition Act (4 of 1893) undertaking to buy the share of the plaintiff. The defendants accepted the valuation made by th...
Ram Naresh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All242
Allsop, J.1. The appellants Ram Naresh, Jagan, Bissu, Banarsi and Barku have been sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 147, I.P.C. for rioting, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 307, I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder, and to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 326, I.P.C. for causing grievous injury by means of a corrosive substance. The case for the prosecution is that Ramji Das was walking up some steps from the edge of the river at Benares when he was surrounded by the-appellants who threw nitric acid over him and caused very serious injuries. That an attack of this nature was made upon Ramji Das admits of no doubt. A number of witnesses have been called to prove it and there is medical evidence that he was badly burnt with acid. The Civil Surgeon was summoned almost immediately and has described the injuries. It appears that Ramji Das was in serious danger of his life at one tim...
GusaIn Singh and ors. Vs. Puran Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All301
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal, and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents for an injunction to restrain the defendants from cultivating plots 1 to 92 in village Kucha. The plaintiffs' case was that this land in dispute was unmeasured land in their village and they had a right to graze their cattle in and to take timber from it. The defendants got this land measured and obtained a grant. The plaintiffs stated in para. 4 of their plaint:The plaintiffs caused within their boundary the measurement of the nayabad land worth cultivation, and they left this land only for purposes of grass, fuel and cattle grazing. If no order is passed regarding grant, the defendants shall cultivate this and the plaintiffs shall be deprived of all the rights. There will be nothing left for grass, fuel and cattle grazing. The right enjoyed from generation shall then no more remain.2. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs had any such right, and inter alia co...
Pt. Shyam Lal Vs. Lakshmi NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All269
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for enforcement of a simple mortgage against defendant 1 has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. Defendant 1, Lakshmi Narain, is a minor and is the son of one Har Lal who was the son of one Bhagwan Din. On 7th February 1918 the plaintiff advanced Rs. 600 to Bhagwan Din on a simple mortgage, re-payment to be made within two years and the rate of interest was 11 annas 9 pies per cent, per mensem with six-monthly rests. The area mortgaged was a share of 2 biswansis. In 1929 Har Lal made a gift of 5 kachwansis to defendants 2 and 3, Jiwa Lal and Chammi Lal. On 21st February 1930 Har Lal executed a simple mortgage deed of 91/2 biswansis to defendants 2 and 3 for Rs. 1000 and he left of this consideration Rs. 600 with defendants 2 and 3 to pay the plaintiff. This was paid to the plaintiff by these defendants on the same date, 21st February 1930. Har Lal died before the present suit was brought on 20th August 1934 and the pre...
Bansraj Pandey Vs. Ram Lal Pandey and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All264
Verma, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant for a declaration that the property specified at the foot of the plaint was liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree No. 1385 of 1929 passed in his favour against defendant 2, Balraj Pande, on 30th July 1929. The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court agreed with the findings of fact of the Court of first instance, but holding in favour of defendant-respondent 1, Ram Lal Pande, on a question of law, reversed the decree and dismissed the suit.2. The material facts as found by the Courts below are these : The plaintiff-appellant obtained a decree No. 1385 of 1929, from a Court of Honorary Munsifs against defendant 2, Balraj Pande, on 30th July 1929. He applied for its execution on 19th June 1931, and prayed for the attachment and sale of the property specified at the foot of the plaint as belonging to his judgment-debtor. On 20th June 1931, the execution Court pansed...
Haldhar Upadhya Vs. Ram Sumer Upadhya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All332
Verma, J.1. The appellant before us was defendant 1 in the suit, which was for the demolition of certain constructions which according to the plaint had been put up by the appellant in plots Nos. 343, 344 and 345. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it in part and has ordered the demolition, of the constructions lying in plot No. 345, and has also given to the plaintiff a decree for joint possession over plot No. 345 with defendant 2. The case of the plaintiff was that plots Nos. 343, 344 and 345 were the sir plots of the plaintiff and defendant 2 and that defendant 1 had built a house, a charan and a cattle trough and had dug a pit and had constructed a well in these plots recently without the consent of the plaintiff. The defence was that there had been a private partition between the plaintiff and defendant 2 under which plot No. 343 had been allotted to the plaintiff as his sir and plots Nos. 344 and 345 had been allotted to defendant 2 as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »