Allahabad Court October 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.
Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor Through Dhanpal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All80
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application in revision by two men, who have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each for voluntarily causing simple hurt. The Courts below have found that the complainant was building a new wall adjoining the applicants' house and that in the course of so doing he cut into a wall which the applicants claimed as their property. The learned tehsildar, who tried the case, took the trouble to go to the scene of occurrence and found that the wall was a very thick one and that it had been cut into to an extent of about six inches. In his judgment no serious injury had been done to the wall. He had no satisfactory evidence before him to satisfy him that the wall belonged to the applicants. He mentions that the complainant also claimed it. He says however the applicants could have sought the protection of the authorities and consequently even if the wall was theirs, they had no right to inflict hurt in private defence of their property.2. Learned counsel for the ap...
Bhiki Mal Murari Lal Through Ch. Inder Mal Vs. Kundan Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All107
Thom, C.J.1. By my order of 3rd January 1939 the Court below was directed to record a finding as to the date upon which the last payment was made by the judgment-debtors to the decree-holder. The finding of the lower Court has now been received. The learned Munsif has held that the last payment was made by the judgment-debtors on 12th December 1935. The present application for execution was made within one year of that date. It was contended for the judgment-debtors that inasmuch as the application was made after the expiry of three years from the date of the original decree it was time-barred. There is no doubt authority for this proposition in the decision by a Full Bench of this Court in Gobardhan Das v. Dau Dayal : AIR1932All273 . In that case it was held that the execution Court bad no power to vary a decree by substituting a compromise concluded between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and that the parties could not extend the period of limitation under Section 48, Civil...
Darshan Singh Vs. Prag Singh, and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All79
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The dispute in the suit out of which the present appeal arises was with respect to the site of two houses that belonged to a tenant named Beni. We are concerned in the present appeal with the site of only one of the houses. Beni sold the house in dispute to certain persons in the year 1932 and the vendees in their turn sold the house to Darshan Singh, defendant, appellant. It is common ground that both Prag Singh, plaintiff-respondent, and Darshan Singh, defendant-appellant, are co-sharers in the site in which the house in dispute is situated. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent for joint possession of the site after the removal of the materials thereon. Beni had died before the institution of the suit. The suit was contested on various grounds by Darshan Singh but most of those grounds were rightly overruled by both the Courts below and need not therefore be stated in this judgment. One of the pleas raised in defence by Darshan Singh, which found favour ...
Sankatha Prasad Vs. Mt. Rukhmani and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All97
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a pre-emption suit. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif whose decision was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. The second appeal in this Court was dismissed and it is against that order of dismissal that the present appeal has been filed. The main question in issue between the parties is as to whether a pre-emption will lie in the case of a sale in which the ostensible vendee is a benamidar for a cosharer. The learned Single Judge has held that the question for decision in such a case is, who is the real purchaser of the property which the plaintiff desires to pre-empt? If the real purchaser is a cosharer who has a prior right of pre-emption the plaintiff's claim must fail. Benami transactions as the learned Single Judge has pointed out are recognized by the law of this country and there is no authority beyond the decision in Manzur Ali v. Sultan (1927) 14 AIR Oudh 509 for the proposition that the Court is not ent...
Dal Singar Koeri Vs. Chandi Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All145
Mulla, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, against a decree passed by the learned Munsif of Azamgarh in the exercise of Small Cause Court jurisdiction dismissing a suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The relevant facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows: The applicant Dalsinger Koeri and Kharpattu Koeri who appears as opposite party No. 2 in the present case held a simple mortgage from the opposite party No. 1, Chandi Singh, for Rs. 55. The mortgage deed was executed on 30th January 1932 but was not registered. The omission to register the deed was presumably due to a mistaken belief that the value of the mortgage being less than Rs. 100 no registration was necessary. On 29th January 1938 the applicant and Kharpattu Koeri instituted a suit on the basis of that mortgage in the Court of the learned Munsif at Azamgarh on the regular side.2. There is no contest that the suit was within time on that date ina...
Ram Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. Param Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All118
Verma, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the suit. The principal reliefs claimed in plaint were these:(a) It may be declared that the property bounded as set forth below and owned by the plaintiffs is not liable to be sold at auction in satisfaction of the decree, dated 17th December 1931, passed in suit No 50 of 1930, Param Singh v. Chaudhari Narain Singh by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Moradabad.(b) If in the opinion of the Court the plaintiffs may be entitled to the relief in respect of a portion of the property instead of the entire property the plaintiff's right may be declared in respect of that portion of the property.2. The Court below has granted to the plaintiffs a declaration that the property in question is liable to be sold in execution of the mortgage decree No. 50 of 1930for the amount due under the decree minus Rupees 3588-3-0 being part of the principal of the mortgage of 1st February 1926, and interest allowed on this part of the mortgage co...
Roshan Singh Vs. Emperor Through Sampuran Singh Tandon
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1941All87
ORDERMohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order of the Court below. The complainant, Messrs the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited of Bombay, made this complaint through Mr. Tandon, who is the Manager, Tomco Sales Department, Delhi, against the applicant Eoshan Singh, who is the proprietor of Agra Soap and Chemical Works, under Ss.482, 483 and 486, Penal Code. The complaint states that the complainant firm is well known at Bombay and carries on business on a large scale in various kinds of soap; that it has got its trade marks which have been duly registered and one of them is '501' which it has been using on a soap, in the market known by the name of '501'; that the applicant (Roshan Singh) dishonestly with a view to defraud the public has manufactured a soap similar in shape, size, colour, etc., and is selling it underthename '301' : that the general get-up of the soap is designed to deceive the public and to cause loss to the complainant ; that the complai...
Seth Chunni Lal Vs. Ram Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All90
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by Chunni Lal, an unsuccessful plaintiff in a pre-emption suit. The property in dispute was originally situated in khewat No. 1 of mahal Kewal Ram and belonged to one Babu Ram who sold the same to Misri Lal, brother of Chunni Lal, on 27th April for a sum of Rs. 600. On the same date, viz. on 27th April, Misri Lal executed a deed of agreement in favour of Babu Ram agreeing to resell the property to Babu Ram on payment of Rs. 600 within five years, On 23rd April 1935, Misri Lal sold the property in dispute to Ram Prasad, the own brother of Baburam, for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 672. Chunni Lal then filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal to pre-empt the sale in favour of Ram Prasad. It appears that both Chunni Lal and Ram Prasad were cosharers in khewat No. 1 in which the property in dispute was situated, but Chunni Lal maintained that as he was a brother of Misri Lal vendor he had a preferential right of purchase as against Ram Prasa...
Munna Lal Vs. Chatan Prakash and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All65
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the sole plaintiff Munna Lal whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. The mortgage in suit was dated 4th June 1918 executed by Mt. Kirpa Devi, widow of Raghunath Prasad, in favour of Shambhu Nath, mortgagee. The amount was Rupees 40,650 at eleven annas per mensem with six monthly rests. The document is printed on page 43 et seq. The main defence was that there had been a tender under Section 83, T.P. Act, by Shib Charan Das, defendant 6, on 5th September 1921 of Rs. 50,237-8-6 for payment, but that sum had not been withdrawn by the mortgagee. Subsequently there was payment of the amount which was withdrawn by the present plaintiff. The present plaintiff claims however that interest did not cease to run by the tender of 5th September 1921 under Section 83, T.P. Act, as the money was subsequently withdrawn by Shib Charan Das, defendant 6, and the claim is for various periods of interest after that tender. The claim has been disallow...
Baldeo Sahai and anr. Vs. Shiva Datt Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All114
Bennet, J.1. This is an application, purporting to be under the Contempt of Courts Act, brought by Baldeo Sahai and Sumat Prasad against Shiva Datt and his father Ram Swarup. Pt. Ram Swarup, opposite party No. 2, has brought a suit for possession of certain land and removal of constructions against the applicant Baldeo Sahai. The applicant filed a written statement in which he alleged that the suit had been brought at the instance of Bhagwan Das, brother of the plaintiff, and of Shiva Datt, opposite party No. 1, son and pairokar of the plaintiff, and he described Shiva Datt as 'awara.' On 27th March 1939 Ram Swarup, opposite party No. 2, filed an application for this word 'awara' to be struck out and asking for an apology and stating that on failure of an apology proceedings would be taken. On 5th April 1939 the Munsif passed an order stating:The defendant's vakil has stated that the word 'awara' be substituted by the word 'awaragard' which simply means an aimless wanderer while awara ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »