Allahabad Court February 1939 Judgments
Mahadeo and ors. Vs. Baleshwar Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All626
Niamatullah, J.1. This and the connected F.A. No. 369 of 1931 arise out of two suits instituted by the appellants in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ballia, for possession of two tracts of land which were the subject of fluvial action of the river Sarju. The plaintiffs and the defendants second party are the zamindars of village Bansthana, which lies on the south of the river Sarju (which should not be confused with the well-known river Sarju or Ghagra) in the district of Ballia. The defendants first party in the suit giving rise to this appeal are the zamindars and tenants of village Sagarpali, which lies to the north of that river. In the suit which gave rise to E.A. No. 369 of 1931 the plaintiffs and the defendants second party are the same; but defendants first party are the zamindars and tenants of village Bagheji also lying on the north of the river. The plaintiffs claim 68 bighas odd against the proprietors of village Sagarpali. These are specified in list (c) app...
Tag this Judgment!Allah Bux Vs. Budha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All451
Allsop, J.1. This is a first appeal from an order refusing to restore an appeal alleged to have been dismissed for default. The learned Judge said that the appeal was not dismissed for default of appearance and therefore the Court could not order the restoration of the appeal. The application was disallowed with costs. It appears that the appeal was argued on one date and issues were remitted. On the date when the case was again fixed for hearing after the findings had been returned counsel for the appellant did not appear. The Court adjourned the matter for a short while and was then told that counsel's brief of the case had been lost. It was also stated that counsel for the appellant was busy elsewhere and could not appear in Court. The learned Judge directed the party to engage other counsel and offered to allow him to use the record of the Court to prepare his arguments. Some time was allowed and after that when the case was called learn, ed counsel who by that time had put in his ...
Tag this Judgment!RamadhIn Singh Vs. Gajraj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All513
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Letters Patent appeal from the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants-respondents to set aside a sale deed executed on 18th August 1882 by the plaintiff's grand, mother, Mt. Kausilla, in favour of the defendants' ancestors. The plaintiff's case was that the sale was without legal necessity and was not binding on him. The property belonged to Tansukh Eai, who was the last male owner. He died in 1881 leaving his widow Mt. Kausilla, who succeeded to the property as a Hindu widow. She died in 1911 leaving a daughter, Mt. Inder Kuer, the mother of the plaintiff. Mt. Inder Kuer succeeded to the property on the death of Mt. Kausilla. Mt. Inder Kuer died in 1925 leaving the plaintiff as the heir. The defendants contended that the sale was executed for legal necessity and was valid. The trial Court found that out of the sale consideration, Rupees 2400, there was no n...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kirpa Ram and anr. Vs. L. Dwarka Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All518
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for closing two doors and one window opened in the northern wall of the shop in possession of the defendants and also for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction on the roof of their shop or from obstructing the plaintiff in using the roof. The suit was contested by the defendants on several grounds which will be noticed later. The Courts below have decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. It appears that one Ladli Prasad owned two shops adjoining each other. After Ladli Prasad's death his two sons Dwarka Prasad plaintiff and his brother Bhikumal succeeded to the property. Bhikumal died leaving a son Ramchandar. Ramchandar mortgaged one half share in the two shops to the plaintiff Dwarka Prasad on 20th June 1907. On 18th September 1908, Ramchandar sold one of the two shops situated to the north to Mathura Prasad under a sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashi Nath Tewari and anr. Vs. Makchhed Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All504
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal from a decree of the learned Civil Judge of Gorakhpur which affirmed a decree of a learned Munsif of that district. The plaint states that by deed of exchange dated 28th May 1915 the plaintiffs obtained plots in list B while the defendants became owners of plots in list A. The plaint further states that ever since the execution of the deed of exchange the parties have been in possession of the plots assigned to each other; that the Revenue Court for certain reasons have not given effect to the transfer in the revenue papers and that the defendants encouraged by the order of the Revenue Court have attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession. On these allegations it is prayed that the plaintiffs may be granted declaration that they are owners of the plots enumerated in list B and that the defendants are not entitled to interfere in their enjoyment and possession of the aforesaid plots. In the alternative it is prayed that if f...
Tag this Judgment!Ernest Lionel Doutre Vs. Anne Ruth Doutre
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All522
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is a petition by Ernest Lionel Doutre for the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent Anne Ruth Doutre on the ground of her adultery with some person unknown. The fact of adultery us alleged to be established by evidence of non-access and by the fact that the respondent gave birth to an illegitimate child in Bombay on 4th May 1937. The petitioner has been allowed by the Court not to name and implead any co-respondent. There is no reason to disbelieve his allegation that in spite of all efforts he was unable to discover who the man was with whom his wife committed adultery and who was the father of her child. There is no direct evidence of adultery. The petitioner has stated that he was living in Lucknow or Cawnpore at the relevant time and his wife was living in Delhi or Bombay so that he was unable to discover who this man was. The sole oral evidence is that of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner and his wife are European British subjects domi...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dropadi Vs. Bankey Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All548
Verma, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The suit as originally framed asked for the following reliefs:(a) The partnership of the firm known as Lallu Mal Hardeo Das Cotton Spinning Mills, Hathras, may be dissolved and the accounts may be taken from the defendant's manager from the beginning of the partnership and whatever amount may be found due to the plaintiff the same may be awarded to her and inasmuch as the correct sum due to the plaintiff cannot be fixed just now without the rendition of account, the valuation of the suit is fixed at Rs. 5100 and the court-fee has been paid thereon. If according to the accounts the sum due to the plaintiff be found in excess of the said sum, in that case a decree may be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the sum so found due on taking additional court-fee and necessary directions for the dissolution of partnership may be issued and after appointing receiver all the proceedings may be taken in connexion with the dissolution of the partnership....
Tag this Judgment!Anant Prasad Singh Vs. Chunnu Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All452
ORDERAllsop, J.1. These are two connected applications in revision arising out of a suit on the basis of a promissory note which was decreed against the defendant-applicant. The applicant instituted an appeal against the decree, but the learned Judge refused to interfere upon the ground that he had no jurisdiction because the decree had been passed by a Court of Small Causes and no appeal lay. The suit was instituted in the Court of Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal who had the power to deal with it as a Court of Small Causes. Mr. Sheo Harakh Lal was transferred and was not replaced by any other officer. The suit therefore went to the Court of the learned Munsif who decided it. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court held that the Munsif must be deemed to have been acting as a Court of Small Causes under the provisions of Section 24, Civil P.C. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant contended that the suit went to the Munsif's Court under the provisions of Section 35, Small Cause Courts A...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Behari Lal Vs. Ram Partap Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All535
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff and also cross-objections by the defendant. Learned Counsel for defendant states that the cross-objections are not pressed and we dismiss them with costs. The plaintiff brought a suit for the following reliefs:(a) That the partnership known as 'Magan Behari Lal Ram Partap Singh' may be declared as dissolved from a date to be fixed by the Court. (b) That on its being declared dissolved, an account he taken of the said partnership and the defendant be asked to render its accounts from 1922 up to the date of the decree and whatever is found due to the plaintiff be awarded to him.2. The partnership had a wide scope according to the plaintiff and the defendant admitted the partnership but did not admit the extent of the partnership. The plaintiff set out that the partnership with the defendant began in 1916 and comprised the following eight undertakings:Year Venture1. 1916- Contract from the military authorities17 for the supply of green ...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Swami Satsang Sabha Vs. Tara Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All557
Collister, J.1. The facts out of which these three appeals arise are set out in full in our order of remand dated 4th April 1938. Under that order we remitted the following issue to the lower Court:Whether the declaration which was made by the Local Government under Section 6(1), Land Acquisition Act, was invalid by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A and the first portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act.2. The finding of the District Judge--who took the case on to his own file--is that Bohra Tara Chand, plaintiff, has failed to show that he had no notice of the date fixed for hearing his objection under Section 5-A(1) of the Act, and therefore the declaration made by the Government under Section 6(1) of the Act was not invalid. We will first take up the appeal in respect of which this issue was remitted, namely F.A. No. 27 of 1934. The objection aforesaid is dated and was presented on 4th January 1932. At the foot of it a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »