Allahabad Court April 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.
Ch. Pahlad Singh Vs. Niadar Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All467
Collister, J.1. This is a reference by the District Judge of Meerut. One Pahlad Singh instituted a suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Belief Act (Local Act 27 of 1934), against certain persons. The trial Court declared that a sum of Rs. 1830-2-0 was due from the plaintiff to the defendants; but the plaintiff was not satisfied with this decree and appealed to the District Judge praying that the amount found due from him to the defendants be reduced to Rs. 1031. The learned District Judge has referred the following question to this Court for determination:Whether in an appeal for reduction of the amount adjudicated by the trial Court in a suit under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act, to be due from the appellant to the respondent ad valorem court-fee should be charged on the amount by which reduction is sought, and if not, what is the court-fee chargeable?2. A more or less similar matter came before the taxing Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 234 of 1936. The learned Judg...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Shyam Sunder Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All466
Thom, C.J.1. This is an application in civil revision under Section 115, Civil P. Order The application is directed against an order of the learned Civil Judge of Farrukhabad dismissing an application purporting to be under Sections 115 and 151, Civil P.C., in which the applicant sought for the amendment of the original mortgage upon which a decree had been obtained, the plaint in the suit upon the mortgage, the preliminary decree, the final decree and the execution application. It is a matter of admission that the mortgaged property has been erroneously described in the mortgage deed and that the error therein has been repeated in the plaint, the preliminary decree, the final decree and the execution application. It appears that in the mortgage deed the north boundary of the property given is really the south boundary and the south boundary, the north boundary. It appears from the record that following upon the passing of the final decree, the plaintiffs Shiam Sunder, Krishna Kumar, P...
Shah Chaturbhuj Vs. Shah Mauji Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All456
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The questions of law that arise for decision in this and the connected Civil Revision No. 84 of 1937 are : (1) Whether this Court can in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction interfere with orders passed by Courts below under Section 5(1), U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act (Act 27 of 1934)? (2) Whether an application for the conversion of a decree for money into a decree payable by instalments is to be filed in the Court of first instance which decided the suit or in the Court which on appeal or revision passed the ultimate decree in the cause?, and (3) Whether the words 'any decree for money' in Section 5, U.P. Agriculturists' Belief Act mean only a decree passed on the basis of a 'loan' as defined by the Act or include decrees for money of any description whatsoever? The answer to these questions depends on the true interpretation of Section 5 of the Act, the relevant portion of which is-as follows:5. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Coda of Civil P...
Brij Mohan Vs. Kishun Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All443
Verma, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for a declaration that the property in dispute is the personal property of the plaintiff. The property consists of certain buildings in the town of Allahabad and is detailed in the plaint in Schedules A and B. It originally belonged to Jagannath who died about the year 1865. The basis of the claim is that Mukandi Lal, the father of the appellant, was a foandhu, having heritable rights, of Jagannath, that Mukandi Lal succeeded to the property on the death of Jagannath's widow Mt. Lalta Bibi in November 1908 and that the appellant is entitled to the property by succession as an heir to his father along with his brother Janki Prasad who is defendant 5 in the suit. Several pleas were taken by the defendants, but it is not necessary to mention all of them. The Court below has found that the pedigree set up by the plaintiff is proved but that Mukandi Lal, the father of the Appellant, being five degrees removed from the common ...
Beni Prasad Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All497
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff under the following circumstances: The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership and accounts and the date of the judgment on p. 9 is 30th April 1928. The plaintiff asked for the relief that the plaintiff be declared entitled to one-half of an amount in deposit in a Court and the valuation of the suit was Rs. 51,000 and the court-fee paid was Rs. 10 for the declaration mentioned and Rs. 75 for a declaration that the partner, ship had ceased to exist. An objection was taken in the written statement of the defendants that the court-fee paid was insufficient and this formed the subject of Issue 2. The plaintiff must have been aware therefore from the date of filing the written statement in 1927 that this matter of the court-fee would arise in the case and after arguments the Court held on p. 7 that the plaint was insufficiently stamped and an ad valorem court-fee was required on Rs. 51,000. The order in the ...
Ragho Sewak Rai Vs. Bhola Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All450
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in the following terms:The counsel on the other side has no objection excepting as to costs. The petition is therefore allowed provided that the applicant do pay to the other side all the costs of the litigation within two months hence; failing which the application, shall stand dismissed with costs.2. The application to which the order refers was one for permission under Order 23, Rule 1 to withdraw a suit with permission to bring a fresh suit about the same subject-matter. The suit was one for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow in possession of property was not binding upon the reversioners. The question at issue was whether the transferee was the son of the sister of the last male owner of the property. The plaintiff failed in the trial Court and made the application in appeal which led to the order against which this revision has been filed. The only ...
Colonel Chandra Jang Singh Thapa Vs. Sita Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All469
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff Col. Chandra Jang Singh Thapa against a decree of the Civil Judge of Gorakhpur dismissing his suit. The plain, tiff is the owner of the share of 3 annas, 8 pies in mouza Jungal Ajudhya Prasad, Gorakhpur District, and he sues a number of other co-sharers in that village, one of whom defendant 1, Sitaram Lal, son of Raghunath Sahai, alone contests the suit. The plaint sets out that there has not been partition by metes and bounds although the thok of the parties and patties have been entered in the papers, that the plaintiff applied on 11th November 1932 in the Revenue Court for partition and that Sita Ram took objection that the mouza had already been partitioned and the Revenue Court directed the plaintiff under Section 111(2), Land Revenue Act; to get the point decided by the Civil Court. The plaintiff therefore asks for a declarationto the effect that partition by metes and bounds has not been made of mouza Jangal Ajhudhya Prasad, ...
Yusuf Mian Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All440
ORDERAllsop, J.1. These are two connected applications in revision by three men who were convicted of offences under Section 215, I.P.C. and sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 25. According to the judgment of the lower Appellate Court there is evidence that a bullock was stolen from the house of one Sita Barai and that the applicants agreed to take a sum of money to return the bullock. There is also evidence that they did in fact take the complainant to the jungle where they pointed out the bullock tied to a tree. It is urged in these circumstances that the facts do not warrant a conviction under Section 215, I.P.C. It is said in the first place, that there is no proof that the bullock was stolen because the evidence is only to the effect that the bullock was tied up during the night and was missing next morning. It is urged that the applicant should not have been convicted unless it was proved as a positive fact that the bullock had be...
Ch. Tara Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All449
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision. The applicant has been fined Rs. 250 under Section 424, I.P.C., for dishonestly or fraudulently removing a sugarcane crop which was his own property. It appears that there was a decree against him and that the Civil Court Amin went to the village and attached his crop on an application by the decree-holder. Thereupon the applicant cut the crop and sold the sugar, cane to a mill. There is nothing to show that he has ever paid the amount due under the decree. In these ciroumstances1 he was found guilty and sentenced. It; is argued here in the first place that there were technical defects in the trial which presumably, it is suggested, would entitle the applicant to an acquittal. The first is that the matter was brought to the notice of the Sub-divisional Magistrate by the Civil Judge who had issued the order of attachment it is said that the Sub-divisional Magistrate could not act on information received in this manner. I cannot imagi...
Ram Babu and ors. Vs. Chaudhari Sanwal Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938All412
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order D/-8th September 1936 by the learned Civil Judge of Allahabad dismissing their objection to execution of a decree. There were two points of objection taken before the Gourt below but learned Counsel for the appellants before us states that he confines his objection to the point that the Court below had no jurisdiction after its order of 14th November 1932. The learned Civil Judge of Agra had decreed a suit on a simple mortgage and the execution of that decree was transferred to the. Civil Court of Allahabad under the provisions of Section 39 of the Code. It is laid down in Order 21, Rule 6 that the Court sending a decree for execution shall send : (a) a copy of the decree; (b) a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by execution within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed or partial satisfaction had been obtained, and the extent and what part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »