Allahabad Court January 1939 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.
Bansraj Das Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All373
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit to recover a sum of money. One Jairaj Das, who is a son of the plaintiff was convicted on 5th February 1932 under Section 17(1), Criminal Laws Amendment Act. Jairaj was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 300 as fine. The Government got an order of attachment for the purpose of realization of fine and certain buffaloes and bullocks were attached. The plaintiff, in order to save that property from sale paid in a sum of Rs. 300 to the Government on 27th February 1932. Later on, the plaintiff instituted a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council to recover this sum. He alleged that the payment which he made was made under coercion and that the property attached belonged to him and not to his son and that he was therefore entitled to recover Rs. 300 together with interest by way of damages.2. The defence of the Secretary of State for India in Council was that the abov...
Kirpa Shanker Lal Vs. Ram Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All385
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff and the defendants admittedly belong to the same family and they are recorded as co-tenants in certain plots of land constituting an occupancy holding. The plaintiff alleged that for the convenience of cultivation individual plots were separately held, but that there had been no severance of interest and the plots were still joint, and he went on to allege that the defendants had enclosed plots Nos. 1253 and 1254 with a wall and had built certain constructions apparently in the form of a kothri, as appears from the amin's report and from the plaintiff's evidence on these plots. He accordingly Instituted this suit for a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants to remove the constructions and for a prohibitory injunction restraining them from doing any act in the future which might alter the character of these plots. The suit was contested by defendants 1, 2, 10, 11 and 12. They pleaded that plot No. 1253/1 was in th...
Sunder Lal and anr. Vs. L. Benarsi Dass and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All401
Bennet, J.1. This is an execution first appeal brought by two objectors Sundar Lal and Genda Ram against the nominal decree-holder Benarsi Das and his vendee of the decree Shambhu Dayal. The facts so far as ascertained are that there was a decree No. 58 of 1924 in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge of Amballa in favour of Benarai Das and the decree was against Jyoti Prasad, Sundar Lal and Genda Ram, sons of Shankar Das, proprietors of the firm Shankar Das Jyoti Prasad, residents of Amballa. The final mortgage decree under Order 34, Rule 5 was dated 20th October 1934. On that decree there was a sale of the property mortgaged and the date of sale is not known. The sale of the property did not produce the full amount of the decree and a certificate has been sent from the Punjab Court to the District Judge of Meerut for the amount of Rs. 15,046-4-0. An application is made by the decree-holder that this amount should be realized under Order 34, Rule 6 by a personal decree against certain pro...
Chhedi Lal Vs. Bharat Tamoli
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All448
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court in proceedings which were instituted under Section 33, Agriculturists Relief Act of 1934. The plaintiff filed a suit for an accounting. The defence to the suit was that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist. The learned Munsif sustained the defence and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the learned Civil Judge in the lower Appellate Court held that inasmuch as the plaintiff was an agriculturist at the time of the institution of the suit the suit should not have been dismissed. He accordingly remanded the case to the trial Court for decision on the merits. The defendant appealed and the learned single Judge of this Court set aside the order of remand and dismissed the suit. The short question for consideration is as to whether a person who was not an agriculturist at the time when he contracted the loan is entitled to the benefits of Section 33, Agriculturists Relief Act. Upon...
Balbhaddar Singh and anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All369
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by defendants first party against a decree of the lower Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. The circumstances are that there was a partition suit before the Revenue Court on the application of the defendants first party and an objection was raised by the plaintiffs and the defendants second party who formed a joint Hindu family and who comprised five persons. This objection was filed by Banwari Singh on behalf of himself and these other four persons. The objection was to the effect that the proprietary right of these five persons was not subject to any mortgage charge and there, fore that certain specific plots of which the proprietary right had been mortgaged by Prag and Thakuri, predecessors of other co-sharers, in favour of Anmol Singh and others in khata khewat No. 1 should not be assigned to the patti prepared for the objectors in the partition. The Revenue Court made an order of reference to the Civil Court in the following terms:Obje...
M. Aziz UddIn Vs. Haji Maqbul Hussain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All257
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent by the defendant against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. It arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiff respondent for partition and separate possession over his share in the property described in the plaint, and for the closing of some windows and the opening of a door. The plaintiff claimed, in the alternative, that if it be found that the partition has already taken place, he may be awarded possession over the specific share owned by him. The defendant contended that the property had already been partitioned and that the suit was time-barred. The trial Court found that the house of the plaintiff was separate from the rest of the house, that the suit was barred by Article 142, Limitation Act, as the plaintiff had not been in possession within 12 years of the suit and that it was not barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. On appeal, the lower Court went into the question whether the suit was...
Ganga Saran and anr. Vs. Lala Ganeshi Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All225
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that a certain decree (No. 416 of 1929) of the Court of the Munsif of Mahaban is not binding on the plaintiffs and their ancestral property referred to in the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The decision of the learned Munsif was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The learned single Judge of this Court before whom the matter came in second appeal has sustained the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiffs are the sons and grandsons of one Bidhi Chand. Bidhi Chand executed a deed of suretyship under which he undertook to pay the debts due to Ganeshi Lal by two persons Dhanpat Rai and Bidhi Chand. The debtor Bidhi Chand is in no way connected with the surety Bidhi Chand. The debts due to Ganeshi Lal by Dhanpat Rai and Bidhi Chand (the debtor) were not discharged in full. Ganeshi Lal in the circumstances brought a suit in 1929 against the debtors and th...
Municipal Board of Saharanpur Vs. Jagdish Saran
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All519
Verma, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendant, the Municipal Board of Baharanpur. The suit was for a declaration thatthe order of the defendant dated 4th April 1934 and other connected orders imposing a tax in the shape of license fee on the brick carts of the plaintiff was against law and procedure, improper, invalid and penal and was not binding.2. It was also prayed that a perpetual injunction be issued restraining the defendant Board from passing any such order in the future. There was also a prayer for the recovery of a certain sum of money. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it.3. The plaintiff has a brick-kiln outside the limits of the Municipal Board of Saharanpur. He has got six bullock carts and these carts are used by the plaintiff for carrying the bricks to the houses of persons, within the limits of the Municipality, who purchase bricks from the plaintiff. The Municipal Board has ordered the plaintiff to take out...
Wiqar Ali Khan Vs. NaraIn Das Lala Rahumal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All322
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Sections 109 and 110, Civil P.C. The application prays that the applicant has a right to appeal. The facts are that the plaintiff, Narain Das, brought a suit for enforcement of a mortgage executed by defendant 1, Nanabhoy and the suit was brought against defendant 1 and defendant 2, Wiqar Ali Khan, Vakil, as administrators of the property of the deceased father of defendant 1. The trial Court granted a decree on the mortgage. Wiqar Ali Khan appealed and the main question was whether the mortgage was valid. In first appeal this Court held that the mortgage was valid but the amount of interest was reduced from 15 per cent, to 12 per cent, in favour of the appellant the cross-objections were dismissed. The decree therefore was varied in favour of the appellant but the amount of variation was loss than Rs. 10,000. In the proposed appeal it is desired to raise the question of the validity of the mortgage. Tha...
Maqbul HusaIn and ors. Vs. Mt. Zain-un-nissa Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All435
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, Maqbul Husain and Iqbal Husain, are the grandsons of plaintiff 3, Mt. Waliya Bibi. The suit was for the possession of a house and a plot of land and for damages. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2. On appeal by the defendants the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff 3, Mt. Waliya Bibi, had inherited the property from her father and had subsequently made a gift of it in favour of her grandsons, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and that the defendants had interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. A deed of gift bearing date 14th September 1933 was relied upon by the plaintiffs. The defence was that the northern portion of the property in question, namely the house, had belonged to Mir Gulzar Ali, the husband of Mt. Waliya Bibi, and not to the father of the lady, and that on Mir Gulzar Ali's death the property had devolved on the defendants....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »