Allahabad Court March 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.
Angad and ors. Vs. Madho Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-31-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All416
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal from a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in an execution case. The respondents decree-holders brought a suit for the removal of certain constructions from a piece of land and also for the removal of a certain drain opening on to this land. The decree which was ultimately passed by this Court did not allow the removal of two sheds on the land, but did allow an injunction against the defendants that they should not make any other use of the land beyond keeping those structures upon it and making use of a certain drain. According to the decree-holders, the judgment-debtors put up a new structure. The decree-holders made an application in the execution department for the removal of this structure. The judgment-debtors contended that the decree-holders were not entitled to any relief in the execution department. Their objection was dismissed. The order of the execution Court was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court and by t...
Souti Raghubar Dayal Vs. Seth Amba Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All390
Verma, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act. The facts briefly are these : The appellant had executed a simple mortgage in favour of the respondent. Subsequently one Lachhmi Narain obtained a money decree against the appellant and in execution of that decree attached the mortgaged property. Thereafter the respondent brought a suit for sale on foot of his mortgage and impleaded the appellant as well as Lachhmi Narain as an attaching creditor. A preliminary decree was passed on 8th July 1929. Some time later, a sale of certain house property, which was part of the property mortgaged, took place in execution of Lachhmi Narain's money decree and it was purchased by Musammat Shivanandi, who happens to be the appellant's daughter. The respondent subsequently applied for the preparation of a final mortgage decree and made Musammat Shivanandi also a party to his application, and a final decree was passed on 22nd March 1930. By the time the final decr...
Suraj Patish Nandan Lal Vs. Mt. Atul Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All429
Thom, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. On 9th October 1918, one Mohammad Khan, the deceased husband of defendant 1, executed a perpetual lease in favour of the plaintiff of certain plots described by him as sir which were in his possession as zamindar. Two days later, on 11th October 1918, Mohammad Khan executed a mortgage of his zamindari in this khewat with possession to Brij Patish who was a cousin of the plaintiff and who was held by the trial Court to be joint with him. The possession of the sir was never transferred by Mohammad Khan. The mortgage referred to above was later redeemed by a subsequent mortgagee. The plaintiff brought the present suit for possession under his lease on 27th June 1930. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 113 of Schedule 1, Lim. Act. The plaintiff's case, on the other hand, was that Article 144 applied to the suit. Both the lowe...
Raghubir Singh Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All445
Thom, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal from an order arising out of an execution proceeding. The appellant sustained injuries in an accident. He was a lorry driver and his lorry collided with a train at a level crossing. The respondent are a Railway Company and the amount of damages claimed by the appellant was Rs. 7000. The learned Judge who tried the case held that the Railway Company were liable in damages. He found that up to date the amount of damages suffered by the appellant was Rs. 932. The learned Judge however did not decide the question of possible future damage. The learned Judge formed the opinion upon the evidence that in all probability the plaintiff's physical condition would have suffered permanent deterioration as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. He was of the view however that he was not able, on the information before him, to decide the full amount of damages to whi...
Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh Vs. Ranbir Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All477
Bajpai, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C. asking for the revision of an order passed by the Civil Judge of Agra, dated 6th February 1937. The opposite party, Ranbir Prasad, had obtained decree No. 31 of 1932 against the applicant Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh. On 12th December 1936, Sheo Baran Singh applied in the Court of the Civil Judge of Agra under Section 30, Agriculturists' Belief Act for reduction in the amount of interest calculated in the above mentioned decree. The application was opposed by Ranbir Prasad and has been dismissed by the Court below. The ground for the dismissal was that a similar application had been rejected by that very Court on 15th August 1936 and that as the decree-holder,clearly and unmistakably stated that his decree had already been satisfied and did not subsist any longer there remained nothing for the Court to amend.2. Both these grounds are assailed by Chaudhari Sheo Baran Singh before us. It is necessary at this stage to state a...
Datta Mal and ors. Vs. Lala Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All414
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by five-defendants against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Dehra Dun under Schedule 2, Para. 17, Civil P.C. making an order of reference to two arbitrators appointed in accordance with an agreement. The agreement in question is dated 5th September 1933 and was drawn up at Mussoorie. The family pedigree in the judgment of the Court below shows that there were ten parties to the agreement, defendants 1 to 10 and also the single plaintiff Amar Nath. Defendants 6 to 10 were persons who had separated 40 years ago and they were not concerned with the agreement which was one for reference to arbitration of the question of partition of the property situated in Kitabghar, Mussoorie, and mauza Habri, tashil Kaithal, District Karnal, in the Punjab. Although the ten names of defendants are set out in the beginning of the agreement actually the document was signed by six of them including defendants 1, 2 and 4 but excluding defendant 3, Gur Prasad, and def...
Hira Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All395
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction under Section 4, United Provinces Prevention of Adulteration Act. The point raised against the conviction is that the summons issued to the applicant did not contain the particulars required by Section 15 of the Act. Learned Counsel maintains that the failure to give these particulars is by itself sufficient to justify the acquittal of the applicant. He has relied upon the cases in Banarsi Das v. Emperor : AIR1930All595 , Raghubar Dayal v. Emperor : AIR1931All705 and Gajraj Singh v. Emperor : AIR1936All761 . I have examined the judgments delivered in these cases and I am of opinion that they do not justify the wide proposition that an irregularity in a summons issued under the Prevention of Adulteration of Food Act is in itself sufficient to justify an acquittal. The cases in Banarsi Das v. Emperor : AIR1930All595 and Raghubar Dayal v. Emperor : AIR1931All705 were cases under the Act, but they were both cases in ...
Chaudhari Bed Ram Singh Vs. Inderjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All437
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff against the portion of his suit dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff Bed Ram Singh brought a suit on a simple mortgage which was executed for Rs. 7000 on 22nd April 1927 by one Inderjit Singh, defendant 1. The suit was contested by defendants 2 and 3, the minor sons of defendant 1. The mortgage deed on pp. 26 and 27 sets out the amount of consideration in four items. Of these items 1 and 4 have been disallowed by the Court below. Item 2 has been allowed, Rs. 1269 for payment of two previous simple bonds, and item 3, Rs. 1000 left in deposit to be taken when required, was admittedly never paid and is not in contest in appeal. The main contest was in regard to item 4 which was Rs. 4500 paid in cash at registration. Now the mortgage deed as originally drafted merely set out that the money was borrowed and did not mention any purpose for which the Rs. 4500 was borrowed. In the margin of the hypothecation bond the words are added t...
Darbar Patiala Vs. Firm NaraIn Das Gulab Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All434
Collister, J.1. These are two appeals under Section 45, U.P. Encumbered Estates-Act. Each arises out of a stay order which, has been passed by the Special Judge of Saharanpur. The Jagadhari Estate, i.e. the respondent to these appeals, was under the Court of Wards, but it has now been released. The owners of the estate traded in the name of Narain Das Gulab Singh. The Patiala Darbar obtained a money decree against the respondent at Ambala, and a similar decree was obtained there by the Punjab National Bank. The Jagadhari Estate has property in the United Provinces as well as in the Punjab. Each of the two aforesaid decree, holders put his decree into execution against immovable property belonging to the respondent in the Punjab. While these decrees were under execution, the respondent presented an application-before the Collector of Saharanpur under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, and in due course that application was sent, under Section 6 of the Act, to the Special Judge. The...
Mahadeo Singh Vs. Mian DIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All431
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal and arises out of a suit brought by him against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house described in the plaint by virtue of the sale deed dated 14th December 1934, executed by Raj Narain, defendant 2, and that Mian Din, defendant 1, has not acquired any title to the house under his sale deed dated 20th December 1934, which was also xecuted by Raj Narain, defendant 2. The plaintiff's case was that his sale deed was executed by Raj Narain on 14th December 1934 for Rs. 800 and it was registered on 26th January 1935 and he acquired a valid title under it. Mian Din, defendant 1, contended that his sale deed was executed by Raj Narain on 26th September 1934, and it being a prior sale deed, he became the owner of the house and the plaintiff's sale deed was ineffectual. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal the learned Civil Judge has found in favour of Mian Din and has held th...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »