Allahabad Court November 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.
Sat Deo Prasad Vs. Debi Badal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All143
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by Sat Deo Prasad, minor, an unsuccessful plaintiff, whose suit for a declaration that the compromise decree in suit No. 233 of 1933 of the Court of the Munsif, West Allahabad, was conclusive and void and was not binding on him (the plaintiff) has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties to the present suit are descended from one Bhagwan Prasad and their family pedigree is as follows: BHAGWAN PRASAD | Debi Badal, defendant 1. _______________________|__________________ | | |Mathura Prasad Dwarka Prasad, Mahadeo = defendant 3. Prasad,Inder Koer, defendant 2. widow, |defendant 4. Sat Deo, plaintiff.2. It appears that suit No. 233 of 1933 was filed on behalf of Sat Deo Prasad by his mother, Mt. Bhagwati Devi, who acted as his next friend in the suit. The defendants to that suit were amongst others Debi Badal, Dwarka Prasad and Inder Kuer. As Mt. Bhagwati Devi was a pardanashin lady she appointed one Balgobind as an attorney to look after the ...
Lala Sumer Chand Vs. Mt. Mukhtari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All147
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration of proprietary title. The appeal which is under the Letters Patent is against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court. The only question raised for decision in the appeal is as to whether the suit is time barred. A suit was instituted following an order by the Revenue Court under Section 111, Land Revenue Act. The Revenue Court's order was passed on 17th June 1932. The plaintiffs instituted their suit in the Civil Court as required within three months. This suit however was withdrawn on. 7th September 1933 with the permission of the Civil Court and the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on 21st September 1933, i.e. more than three months after the order of the Revenue Court. The defendant-appellant pleaded that the suit was time-barred. This plea was rejected and the suit was decreed. Upon this point the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the learned Civil Judge in the lo...
Harcharan Das Somparkash Vs. Jai Jai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All182
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. The plaintiff, a firm, instituted a suit against the defendant in the Court of Small Causes at Moradabad to recover a sum of money. The defence was that the contract on the basis of which the plaintiff sued was a wagering contract. This defence has been upheld by the learned Judge of the Court below and the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff firm has come up in revision before this Court. The defendant firm carries on business as commission agents at Moradabad, while the plaintiff firm are grain dealers at Meerut. In February and March 1934, the defendant firm purchased grain from the plaintiff. In connexion with those purchases the plaintiff claimed to recover profits together with interest. The important question which requires consideration in this case is whether or not the contract set up by the plaintiff was a wagering contract. The rule laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Sukdev Doss Ram Prasad v. Govind Doss Chaturbhuja Doss & Co. ...
Chhanga Mal Vs. Emperor Through Health Officer, Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All174
Bennet, J.1. 'This is a criminal reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Aligarh in regard to a conviction of Chhanga Mal under Section 18, U.P. Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 6 of 1912) and a fine of Rs. 150 and Rs. 48-12-0 as expenses or in default of payment one month's rigorous imprisonment. The case was tried summarily and was a summons case. The Criminal P.C., Section 242 provides as follows:When the accused appeals or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, arid he shall be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted; but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.2. In accordance with this Section the Magistrate apparently explained the report of the Sanitary Inspector to the accused. This report set out that accused had in his shop certain canisters containing moongphali or groundnut oil and certain canisters containing ghee and the keeping of these two sets of canister...
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Madho Pershad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All242
Thom, C.J.1. These are two connected appeals under the Letters Patent against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court refusing an application for stay of execution of a decree. Both the appeals may be conveniently disposed of in one judgment. A preliminary objection to the appeal has been taken by the respondents. It was contended that under Clause 10, Letters Patent, no appeal lies from an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court refusing an application for stay of execution. An appeal does lie under Clause 10, Letters Patent, if the order appealed against is a 'judgment' within the meaning of that Section. Page C.J. in Dayabhai Jiwandas v. Murugappa Chettiar (1935) 22 AIR Rang 267 observed:What is the meaning of 'judgment' in the Letters Patent of the Indian High Court? That is a question over which controversy has raged in India for nearly 70 years. It is still unsettled.2. During the hearing of this appeal we have been referred to a large number of earlier decisions ...
Santu Vs. Maiku and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All175
Thom, C.J.1. This is an appeal by an objector to an application for probate. The applicants presented an application for probate of the will of one Sita Ram alleged to have been executed and registered by him on 3rd May 1929. That Sita Ram who died on 22nd February 1934, did execute a will on 3rd May 1929, does not, in our judgment, admit of any doubt whatever. The learned District Judge who heard the application for probate has upon a consideration of the evidence held that the will, a certified copy of which only has been produced was executed by Sita Ram on that date. The two attesting witnesses had died by the time the application came before the learned Judge for final disposal. One of these witnesses, Baldeo Prasad, however had made at an earlier stage of the proceedings a declaration which is referred to in the application itself. The declaration is as follows:I, Baldeo Prasad, one of the witnesses to the last will and testament of the testator mentioned in the above petition, d...
B. Risal Singh and ors. Vs. Hira and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All197
Bajpai, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Additional District Judge of Meerut under Section 267(2), Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act, No. 3 of 1926). There is an unfortunate history behind the reference and it is a pity that a suit for arrears of rent filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of the Second Class so far back as 1932 has not yet been finally decided. Originally it was pleaded on behalf of the defendants that they had paid the rent claimed in good faith to one Qabul. Qabul was made a defendant to the suit under Section 270, Agra Tenancy Act. Both Qabul and the original defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was not the proprietor of the land in suit but that Qabul was the proprietor. It is important to notice at this stage that the original defendants did not plead that they were the proprietors of the land in suit but the plea was advanced only by Qabul. The Assistant Collector dismissed the suit. There was an appeal presumably under Section 241 of the Tenancy Act to ...
Ranbir Karam Singh Vs. Jogindra Chandra Bhattacharji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All134
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1. The plaintiff's suit was thatit be declared that defendant 1 is neither the adopted son of the deceased, Mrs. Surendri Helen Karam Singh or her husband, nor is the legal heir to her estate in the hands of the Administrator-General and Official Trustee, United Provinces, Allahabad, which is divisible according to law only amongst the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 who are her legal heirs.2. The Court below has decreed the suit. The plaintiff and the persons who were originally defendants 2 to 4 are brothers. Mrs, Surendri Helen Karam Singh deceased was their sister. Dr. J.C. Bhattacharji, who was originally defendant 2, seems to have died after the institution of the suit and a number of persons have been brought on the record as his legal representatives.3. The plaintiff and his brothers are Christians. So were their sister, Mrs. Surendri Karam Singh deceased, and her husband, Mr. Karam Singh. These facts are admitted. It is also common gr...
Kunwar Shiam Partap Singh Vs. Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All353
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. These are three connected appeals arising out of two suits instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge of Mainpuri. Suit No. 19 of 1931 was instituted by one Thakur Sheorakhan Singh and Suit No. 26 of 1932 by Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar. Sheorakhan Singh, plaintiff of Suit No. 19, died during its pendency in the Court below and is now represented by the present plaintiff Kunwar Shiam Pratap Singh, his son. Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar died during the pendency of the present appeals in this Court. It is common ground between the parties to the present litigations that Raja Hukum Tej Pratap Singh was the proprietor of Partabner estate which is the subject-matter of these litigations. He died on 17th May 1925. Soon after his death several claimants appeared on the scene. It would appear that the patwari made a report to the revenue authorities that mutation should be made in the name of Raja Maha Vindeshri Pratap Singh under the guardianship of Rani Baisni Madho Kunwar, and w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›