Allahabad Court December 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.
Ramdeo Vs. Sri Sadaitan Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All148
ORDERIqbal Ahmad and Bajpai JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,645 odd on the basis of a sarkhat dated 17th June 1934, executed by three brothers named Pandit Sri Sadaitan Pande, Srish Chandra Pande and Sri Kar Pande in favour of the plaintiff firm Thakuri Sao and Purshottam Das. The plaintiffs firm carried on business in Sarguja in the Central Provinces and the three brothers named above carried on the business of commission agents in the district of Mirzapur. It is common ground that there were dealings between the parties and it is alleged by the plaintiff that on the settlement of accounts on 17th June 1934, a sum of Rs. 67,936 was found due to the plaintiff firm from the three brothers and that with respect to this amount a sarkhat was executed in favour of the plaintiff firm. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was directed only against Sri Sadaitan Pande and was for the recovery of one-third of the amount alleged t...
Kanjeshwar Nath and ors. Vs. Benares Bank Ltd. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All196
Bajpai, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before us. The facts giving rise to the suit out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated. It appears that there were three brothers, Onkar Prasad, defendant 2, Piarey Lal, defendant 3, and Lachmi Narain who is not a party to the present suit. Lachmi Narain had certain dealings with the Benares Bank Ltd., Saharanpur, defendant 1, and Onkar Prasad and Piarey Lal, his two brothers, had given a letter of guarantee to the Bank guaranteeing the payment of such sums as might be due by Lachmi Narain to the Bank. There was a settlement of accounts and on 22nd July 1926, a 'hundi' was drawn up. Lachmi Narain was the drawer of the 'hundi.' Onkar Prasad and Piarey Lal were the drawees of the 'hundi' and the Benares Bank was the payee. Suit No. 164 of 1927 was brought by the Bank on the basis of this hundi against Onkar Prasad and Piarey Lal and a decree was obtained. The decree was put in execution and then a security bond was drawn up by On...
Ballabh Das Vs. Gaur Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All261
Verma, J.1. These are two cross petitions in revision and arise out of a suit for possession under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The plaintiffs in the suit were an idol, who was shown as plaintiff 1, and Gaur Das, who appeared as plaintiff 2 and purported to be the Mahanth of the temple. Defendant 1, Ballabh Das, on the other hand, claimed to be the Mahanth. The dispute is with regard to a building which is appurtenant to the temple. Each party denied the possession of the other over that building. The learned Civil Judge has held that both Gaur Das and Ballabh Das were the managers of the temple and had been in possession of the property in dispute in that capacity. He has also held that Ballabh Das's act, which was complained of by Gaur Das, did amount to dispossession of Gaur Das. On these findings of fact he has passed a decree in favour of Gaur Das for joint possession along with Ballabh Das. The main contention raised on behalf of Ballabh Das is that the Court below had no juri...
Mathura Das Vs. NaraIn Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All248
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Jhansi rejecting an application for restoration of an appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit which was dismissed and he appealed to the District Judge. Notice was issued on the appeal and 22nd December 1937 was fixed for hearing the appeal. On 21st December 1937, the day before the date fixed, an application was filed by counsel on behalf of the appellant asking for a local inspection. No order was passed on that application presumably as it was to be heard on the following day. On 22nd December 1937 the appeal was called at 2 P.M. and the learned Counsel for the respondent was present. Neither the appellant nor any of the three counsel whose vakalatnamas had been filed in the appeal appeared on his behalf at any time on the date fixed. The Court waited for one hour until 3 P.M., and at 3 P.M. the appellant appeared in person and put in an application signed apparently by the appellant but withou...
Shib Charan Das Vs. Brij Mohan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All322
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of proceedings for the execution of a decree. The judgment-debtor made an application for stay under the provisions of the United Provinces Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act 10 of 1937. The application was made to the Civil Court which had passed the decree although the decree was in execution in the Collector's Court. The Court which had passed the decree decided that the decree-holder was an agriculturist within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Act 10 of 1937 and that he could obtain a postponement only if he paid one-fifth of the amount decreed. The judgment-debtor appealed to the District Judge who came to the conclusion that the judgment-debtor was entitled to an order for postponement of execution without making any deposit because he was an agriculturist within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 3. The question turned upon the issue whether the judgment-debtor paid more or less than Rs. 250 a year a...
Najban Bibi and ors. Vs. Gur Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All415
Bennet, J.1. This purports to be a first appeal from an order of the Tribunal of the Improvement Trust rejecting an application for restoration. Actually the order is one by the President alone. The President had a proceeding before him under Section 64(1)(b), U.P. Town Improvement Act, Act 8 of 1919, relating to a reference under Section 30, Land Acquisition Act, about the apportionment of compensation among different persons. For this purpose the President of the Tribunal was sitting alone. An appeal would have lain from his decision, but having given his decision an application was made to set it aside and restore the case. The application was by appellant 1 before us that Mt. Najban Bibi alone out of the six appellants. The President rejected that application and it is against that order of rejection that the present appeal is filed. The order of the President rejecting the application for restoration was passed under the U.P. Town Improvement Act, Act 8 of 1919, Section 64(1)(c) w...
Jagdish NaraIn Bajpai Vs. Emperor Through Ram Gopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All178
ORDERBennet, J.1. These are two criminal references by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares at the instance of a complainant Jagdish Narain, a resident of Benares. Jagdish Narain made a complaint under Sections 420/109 and 120-B, I.P.C., against four persons, (1) Babu Ram Gupta of Lucknow, (2) Ramgopal, (3) E. Jones and (4) Balram Gupta, all of Bombay. The complaint alleged that the complainant had accepted an agency for selling cloth supplied by the firm of accused called the Swadeshi Cloth Mills, Bombay, and that the gist of the offence was in para. 11they dishonestly and with a view to defraud the complainant and the public all along assured the complainant that the accused were sending the complainant only Swadeshi goods, which the complainant believed,but that actually some foreign goods were sent. The complainant filed two letters from the accused's firm but he did not file the alleged written agreement which he had with the accused and of which he complains the accused have com...
Emperor Vs. Aftab Mohd. Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All291
Braund, J.1. We are dealing in this case with two appeals (Nos. 300 and 312 of 1938 respectively) under Section 417, Criminal P.C., and one application for revision (No. 296 of 1938), all presented by, or at the instance of, the Local Government. The Appeal No. 300 of 1938 is an appeal in which the fifty-seven respondents, all of whom were acquitted, were upon their trial before the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr. The Appeal No. 312 of 1938, involves eight respondents three of whom were convicted upon charges in connexion with the incident at the temple which we shall mention later and five of whom were convicted upon charges in connexion with the incidents in the bazaar which we shall also deal with. The Revision Application No. 296 of 1938 involves as respondents the same eight men who are respondents in Appeal No. 312 of 1938 and asks for a revision of sentences passed upon them in respect of certain charges in respect of which they were convicted at the trial.2. It will be c...
Dhaneshwar Nath Tewari Vs. Ghanshyam Dhar Misra
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All185
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal against an order directing a temporary injunction to issue against the appellant restraining him 'from transferring the properties in dispute except so far as may be necessary for ordinary enjoyment of the same,' and restraining him 'from receiving the amounts in dispute from the post office and the Court of Wards till 6th August 1938' which date was fixed for hearing the objections of the post office and the Court of Wards to whom notices were directed to issue.2. The matter has arisen thus. One Nath Prakash Dhar Misra died some years ago leaving him surviving a widow Mt. Moharmani Kunwari. Nath Prakash Dhar Misra seems to have been possessed of considerable property, moveable and immovable. His widow died on 23rd August 1935. The respondent, Ghanshyam Dhar Misra, on 28th April 1938, presented a plaint in the Court of the Civil Judge of Gorakhpur claiming the property left by Nath Prakash Dhar Misra on the allegation that he was the reversioner and that t...
Bhagwati Prasad Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All235
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is an application in revision by the plaintiff arising out of a Small Cause Court suit instituted by him against the B.B. and C.I. Railway to recover a sum of money on account of damages. The plaintiff wrote a letter to the station master of Agra Fort railway station, a servant of the defendant company, stating that he desired to engage a special train for carrying a barat party from Agra to Hathras Station and inquiring what the minimum charges will be for the same. The station master wrote back that the charges will be Rs. 250. Later on, the station master wrote to the plaintiff that he will have to pay Rs. 25 more in addition to the sum of Rs. 250 and to this the plaintiff agreed by his letter dated 24th February 1937. On 26th February 1937, when the plaintiff went to the railway station he was told that the correct charges were more than the amount mentioned by the station master and the plaintiff therefore had to pay a sum of Rs. 320 in addition to R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »