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.
Municipal Board Vs. Habib Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All383
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant Board in a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining it from demolishing certain constructions of the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the lower Appellate Court has decreed it. The plaintiff-respondent applied to the Municipal Board for permission to make certain constructions and the Board granted the application and sanctioned the erection of the building proposed by the plaintiff. It is common ground that the plaintiff in making the constructions has not done anything which can be said to be in contravention of any directions made by the Board or in contravention of any provision of the law or of any bye-law. It is clear therefore that whatever the plaintiff, respondent has done is not within Section 185, Municipalities Act. It appears that some time after the plaintiff-respondent had completed his constructions, correspondence ensued between the Municipal Board and the Collector of the District, and ultimately...
Balesar Misir Vs. Tekesar Misir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All454
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by one of the plaintiffs against a decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The trial Court had decreed the suit. The plaintiffs brought a suit for an injunction restraining the defendants first set from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land of two karis of sub-plot 10/1 and a kothri and in the alternative for possession and also for Rs. 20 damages. The suit of the plaintiffs was based on the following considerations:The defendants first set brought a Suit No. 126 of 1931 against the plaintiffs and defendants second set for possession of a bamboo clump in the village. That suit was terminated by a compromise dated 29th March 1932. This compromise had two terms, the first of which set out that the plaintiffs were the owners of the bamboo clump. The second term set out that the parties had made an exchange and had put each other in possession of certain other property which was not in suit. T...
Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Chander Bali Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All279
Bennet, J.1. This is a civil revision by a plaintiff against a decree of the Small Cause Court dismissing his suit. On 1st July 1933 a promissory note was executed by defendant 1, Chander Bali Singh,' in favour of defendant 2, Ranbaj Singh, purporting to be for Rs. 200 in cash. On 14th February 1936 defendant 2 executed a sale deed of this promissory note in favour of the plaintiff but no endorsement was made by defendant 2 in favour of plaintiff on 4ho back of the note and no endorsement of any kind. The defence was as follows : Ranbaj Singh has a daughter, Mt. Phulbasi Kunwar, who was married to the brother of defendant 1 and the brother is apparently dead. There are two daughters, issues of this marriage. A suit was brought by Mt. Phulbasi Kunwar for maintenance against defendant 1 and a compromise was executed in that suit by which defendant 1 agreed to maintain Mt. Phulbasi Kunwar. It is found, and is common ground that 1, or 8 days before this compromise the promissory note in su...
Bangali Mal Vs. Bansidhar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All391
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit for sale on a mortgage dated 23rd August 1929. The mortgage was executed by Bansidhar and his son Cheddi Lal who are members of a joint Hindu family. Bansidhar and Cheddi Lal contested the suit inter alia on the allegation that both of them were agriculturists and were entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Sections 3 and 30, U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (Act 27 of 1934). They prayed that the rate of interest be reduced and the decretal amount be made payable by instalments. This prayer of the defendants was accepted by the trial Court and that Court reduced the interest and also granted certain instalments. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial Court. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court and it is argued on his behalf that in view of the provisions of Expln. 2 to Sub-section (2), Section 2 of the Act the Courts below were wrong in granting in...
B. Dharam Nath Vs. M. Mohammad Umar Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All554
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the lower Appellate Court dismissing his suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court decreed the suit for damages amounting to Rs. 102 with costs, on the finding that the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause. The lower Appellate Court confirmed this finding but on a technical point held that the defendant could not be said to have prosecuted the plaintiff in the sense required for a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is one of the members of the Notified Area Committee and this Notified Area Committee prosecuted the defendant under Section 185, U.P. Municipalities Act, for a house which he ?had built. That ease was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently the defendant made an application to the Magistrate who had tried that suit for prosecution of one B. Daulat Ram, the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee, under Sec...
Ram Baran Upadhiya and anr. Vs. Sital Pathak and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All340
1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them and other defendants respondents by the plaintiff for a declaration that Mt. Ram Kuari, defendant 2, was his wife and that her subsequent marriage with defendant 5 was invalid. The defendants contended that Mt. Ram Kuari was never married to the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that she was legally married to the plaintiff and her marriage is valid. It has been contended by learned Counsel on behalf of the defendants that in view of the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (Act 19 of 1929), such a declaration should not have been granted by the lower Courts. He has relied on two cases, Horamasji Motabhai v. Pestanji Dhanjibhai (1888) 12 Bom. 422 and Keshav Hargovan v. Bai Gandi (1915) 2 A.I.R. Bom. 107. These cases do not apply to the present case. The first case deals with a contract which was itself void being prohibited by law. The second case deals with an immoral custom....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›