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.
Balbir Singh and ors. Vs. Sohan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All303
Verma, J.1. This is a first appeal by certain debtors Balbir Singh, etc. against an order by the Special Judge under the Encumbered Estates Act. The order is one accepting a claim by the opposite party, the creditors, Seth Sohan Lal and others, for the entry of a debt due to them on a simple mortgage deed of 10th July 1922, duly registered, which is charged on the property of the applicants. The applicants applied under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act (Act 25 of 1934). Under that Section the applicants were bound to state the amount of their debts to the Collector. The applicants did not mention this debt although it was a debt due under a registered mortgage. Under Section 8 of the Act the Special Judge called on the applicants to submit a written statement containing under Sub-section (1)(a) full particulars respecting the public and private debts to which the landlord is subject, or with which his immovable property or any part thereof is encumbered. The mortgage debt in ques...
Madho Prasad Vs. Makhan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All328
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the lower Appellate Court in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and recovery of Rs. 500 or such sum as may be found due to the plaintiff as a result of accounting. The plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant entered into a partnership to carry on a grocery shop and the business of the partnership was carried on for some time. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was in charge of the business, but he closed the shop in November 1935 and removed some of the goods of the partnership. The plaintiff therefore maintained that the defendant was liable to render accounts. Before the institution of the suit the defendant had filed an application under the Encumbered Estates Act (Act 25 of 1934) and the Collector had passed an order under Section 6 of the Act. The defendant maintained that after the passing of the order under Section 6, the suit was n...
Parma Nand Ram and ors. Vs. Thakur Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All217
Collister, J.1. This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. The parties are closely related to each other and in order to understand the relationship, the following pedigree may be set out. Radha Sahu | ----------------------------------------------- | | Mohan Sahu Sohan Sahu | | --------------------------- -------------------------- | | | | | |Mewa Ram Goga Ram Tamal Ram Imrit Ram Bisa Ram Bhawan | ------------------- | |----------------------------------------------| | | Adit Ram Moti Ram | (died 16-4-1934) | | Murlidhar (died on 20-4-1930) | | ----------------------- | | | ----------------------- Parma Nand Sachita Nand | | (defendant 1) (defendant 2)Thakur Prasad Daya Nand |(Plaintiff 1) (Plaintiff 2) Kamta Prasad (Defendant 3)2. It is an admitted fact that in 1919 there was a partition between the six branches of the family representing the grandsons of Radha Sahu. The plaintiffs contend that their fami...
Mt. Brij Devi Vs. Shiva Nanda Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All221
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed possession of certain property which had formed the subject of a deed of gift executed by the plaintiffs' ancestor on 11th December 1914, in favour of Jain Bulaqi Shankar. The material terms of the gift-deed are as follows:I have made a gift to Pt. Jain Bulaqi Shankar for construction of the temple of Bhaironji, and residence, and removing my possession from the property gifted I have put the donee in proprietary possession and he will have the right to construct a temple and a quarter... The donee or his successors will have no right to transfer or mortgage it; if he does, the transfer will be invalid, and I and my successors will have a right to get the gift revoked.2. Following upon this gift in his favour, the donee was put in possession of the property. He did not however succeed in building the temple or a residential quarter for his own occupation. On 14th April 1927 however he made a waqf of the...
Mohib Ali Khan Vs. Baldeo Prashad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All380
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit for pre-emption has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The suit was brought in regard to a sale deed dated 25th November 1932 executed by defendant 3, Hira Lal, in favour of defendant 1, Baldeo Prasad, who is a co-sharer in the village, and defendant 2, Ram Chandra, who is not a cosharer. The son of Baldeo Prasad is married to the sister of Ram Chandra. The sale deed was for certain property of which one quarter was sold-jointly to defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 3750 as set out in the sale deed, and the remaining three, fourths to other persons. The plaintiff was about to bring a suit for pre-emption which was actually filed on 25th November 1933 although it was not registered until a later date, 25th February 1935. A deed of gift was executed by defendant 1 to defendant 2 of a minute share of the zamindari with a revenue of Rs. 1-8-0 stated to be worth Rs. 45, bearing the date 30th October 1933 and registered on 18th Dece...
Siraj Ahmad Khan and ors. Vs. Gaya Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All219
Verma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants, the suit having been substantially decreed by both the Courts below. The plaintiff-respondent by his plaint prayed: (a) for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants first party from entering the plaintiff's enclosure in any manner and from holding any assembly ('jalsa') theroin and from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff's possession; (b) for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants first party from interfering in any mariner with the plaintiff or his vendees whenever the latter wanted to erect any buildings inside the enclosure or to build its walls; (c) for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants first party from taking possession over the puccachabutra situated near the bar ka tree inside the plaintiff's enclosure and from interfering with the plaintiff in connexion therewith, and (d) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 150 as damages. The last relief has not been granted by the Courts below an...
Rameshvar Dayal Vs. Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All215
Mulla, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by a Special Judge of the First Grade in a proceeding under the Encumbered Estates Act. The appellant, Rameshvar Dayal, is a landlord who has made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. It is admitted that in that application he mentioned the name of the respondent Sheo Narain in the list of his creditors. It is further admitted that when the appellant was asked by the Court to furnish further particulars as required by Section 8(d), Encumbered Estates Act, he gave the name and address of the respondent Sheo Narain amongst his creditors. A notice was then published in the Gazette as required by Section 9 of the Act. A copy of that notice was also ordered by the Court to be sent to the respondent Sheo Narain as required by Section 9(2) of the Act. Attempts were made to effect personal service of that copy of the notice on the respondent but they failed. The appellant then asked the Court to make a final attempt by se...
Durga Charan Vs. Markande Misir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All233
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs respondents for account under Section 33, Clause (1), U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act. Money was due to the defendant on a mortgage of 14th April 1928 executed by the plaintiffs respondents. The trial Court found that Rs. 1210 were due. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has reduced the interest from 24 per cent, per annum to 12 per cent, per annum and has reduced the amount of Rs. 1210 which was found due by the plaintiff to the defendant by the trial Court by Rs. 484. The defendant has come here in second appeal. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that no appeal lay to the lower Court. His contention is that the suit was filed under the provisions of Section 33, Clause (1), U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act, which is a special Act. It does not provide for an appeal from an order or decree which may be passed in the suit. There is no doubt that there are o...
Bhajja Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All238
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Local Government against an appellate order passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore on 9th July 1938. One Bhajja was convicted of the offence of theft and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months. He appealed to the learned Sessions Judge who did not hear the appeal upon its merits but set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered a retrial upon the technical ground that the Magistrate had made a mistake in procedure during the course of the trial. The witnesses for the prosecution were examined upon 6th June. On the same day the statement of the accused was taken and a charge was framed, read out and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty. The Magistrate then adjourned the case to 7th June and on that date he asked the accused whether he wished further to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. The accused said that he did not wish to examine them further. The learned Judg...
Thakur Bakht Bali Singh and ors. Vs. Sarju Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-01-1938
Reported in: AIR1939All236
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. These connected appeals arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for the redemption of the plots described in the plaint. It was set out in the plaint that the predecessors of defendants 1 to 9 obtained a mortgage of an occupancy holding under a deed dated 23rd August 1876 for a consideration of Rs. 599. The plaintiff further alleged that a sum of Rs. 809 should be set off on certain accounts and he offered to pay the balance to the defendants. Defendants 10 to 13 were impleaded as their names appeared in village papers with respect to certain plots covered by the mortgage. The suit was contested by the defendants on a variety of grounds but was ultimately decreed. There are two separate appeals by the two sets of the defendants. Defendants 1 to 9 form one set and the remaining defendants another. Dr. Malviya who appears for defendants 1 to 9 has strenuously argued that no suit for redemption lay as a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding was not permi...