Allahabad Court April 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.
Kauleshar Shukul Vs. Ram Kishore Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All699
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Kauleshar Shukul, defendant, and is connected with Second Appeal No. 478 of 1937 which is an appeal by Ram Kishore Lal and others, plaintiffs. Both appeals arise out of a single suit which was brought by Ram Kishore Lal and others. As the suit was partly decreed and partly dismissed there were two appeals before the lower Appellate Court and that is why there are two appeals before me. It appears that there were two brothers Ram Rekha and Bujhawan who were joint. Ram Rekha died first in 1905 and the name of Mt. Dula, his widow, was recorded over half the property and Bujhawan made no protest. Bujhawan died in 1908 and Mt. Dula's name was recorded over Bujhawan's share as well. There were certain reversioners, but they did not object. In the year 1934, on 15th June, Mt. Dula executed a perpetual lease in favour of Kauleshar Shukul and his brother Bindeshri Shukul. A day after, on 16th June 1934, she executed a deed of gift in favour of these two Shukuls...
Maharaj Ram Bijai Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Bhanjan Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All638
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant the Hum of Rs. 55-14-7 on account of revenue alleged to have been realized from him in respect of the defendant's share of revenue for the year 1928, plus Rs. 11-12.0 interest, Rs. 67-10-7 in all. A preliminary objection to the appeal has been taken on behalf of the defendant-respondent. It has been urged that the appeal should be dismissed upon Ute ground that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the first Court, in accordance with the provisions of Section 264 and serial No. 14 of Hat 2 of Schedule 2, Agra Tenancy Act. It is a matter of admission that when the appeal was filed it was not accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the original Court, that is the judgment of the Assistant Collector of the First Class. It was maintained, in these circumstances, for the respondent that the appeal fell to be dismissed, and that a co...
Ram Chander Vs. Kunji Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All663
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff Ram Chandra. He brought a suit or a declaration that the house mentioned in the plaint had been in the possession of the plaintiff for about 14 years with the permission of the zamindar and that the defendant who was attempting to interfere with this possession should be restrained by means of a perpetual injunction. It is dear that the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that ho had been in possession all along. The Court of first instance came to the isoncluaion that the plaintiff was in possession of the house with the permission of the zamindar. The suit was therefore decreed by the trial Court. The defendant filed an appeal and applied during the pendency of the appeal for the reception of some additional evidence which consisted of certain public documents. The application was supported by an affidavit. There were objections by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court in a very short and cryptic order admitted the additional evidence. I...
Asmat Ullah and ors. Vs. Mt. Khatun-unnisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All592
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession of property. The plaintiff is one Mt. Khatununisa and she claims the property as the hair of her deceased husband. As his heir she is entitled to one-eighth of the property. She alleges that she has been in possession of the whole property in dispute in lieu of dower which she averred was Rs. 3000. The defence was that the plainfiff had been divorced by her deceased husband during his lifetime and she was not smtitled to anything in lieu of dower or to any share in her deceased husband's estate. The learned Civil Judge in the lower Appellate Court upon a consideration of the evidence has held that the defendants had failed to prove that the plaintiff's husband had divorced her. He has held further that the dower was not Rs. 3000 but Rs. 35-4-0 and that this amount had been paid. He held finally that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property in dispute in lieu of dower. He accordingly granted decree...
Noor Mohammad, Lambardar and ors. Vs. Lalloo and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All614
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by a lambardar and 18 other plaintiffs who have brought a suit against 22 defendants. The Court below has held that the suit does not lie in the Civil Court but in the Revenue Court and that therefore the plaint has been returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The question therefore is solely one of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction will be determined by the allegations in the plaint. The plaint sets out in para. 3 that about 50 years ago the zamindars, who were predecessors of the plaintiffs, established a new bazar on a certain plot of land. Para. 6 states that about 150 persons including the 22 defendants earned money by weighing goods which come to the bazar and make a charge which is a customary charge according to para. 8 Para. 9 alleges that the plaintiffs as zamindars are entitled to have three-fourths share of the charge made by the defendants for weighment and the one-fourth should remain with the defendants. It is ...
Bhudeo Prasad Vs. Sri Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All657
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Bhudeo Prasad, plaintiff. The facts may be stated in some detail. The suit by the plaintiff was for the recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a mortgage executed by one Babu Lal. The defendants to the suit were the brothers of Babu Lal and one Sri Nath who was a subsequent transferee of 2/3rds of the mortgaged property. The main contesting defendant was Sri Nath and I am concerned with his defence only. His defence was that by reason of an order passed by an executing Court on 28th January 1931 the mortgagee was not entitled to proceed against 2/3rds of the mortgaged property in possession of Sri Nath. It appears that 1/3rd of the mortgaged property was put up to sale in execution of a simple money decree and the property was attached by the amin on 13th April 1930. On 23rd April 1930 Bhudeo Prasad filed a certain petition in connexion with which an order was passed by the executing Court on 28th January 1931, and it is said that this was an order...
Rev. Luckman ChaplaIn Vs. Pearey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All670
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The applicant here was the defendant in the Court below. It arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in respect of a bungalow situated within the cantonment area at Meerut. It appears that Pearey Lal, the plaintiff in the suit, is the executor of a will made by one Lala Har Prasad Barati Lal and in that capacity he was in charge of the bungalow in question which formed part of the estate of the testator. It is admitted that he used to give the bungalow out on rent to different tenants and that on 1st November 1937 he admitted the defendant applicant as a tenant of the bungalow. It appears however that the bungalow in question being situated within the cantonment area is held on a tenure called the cantonment tenure under which the Government is authorized to resume possession of the land and also of any house standing thereon by offering proper compensation to the owner. This is an allegation ...
Mewa Ram Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All466
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. In the year 1931 the Municipal Board of Muttra purporting to act in exercise of the powers vested in it under Sections 293 and 298(2)H(b) & J(d), Municipalities Act (2 of 1916) framed certain bye-laws 'for the regulation of stands for motor vehicles and hackney carriages within the Muttra Municipality' and the question of the validity or otherwise of those bye-laws has occasioned the present reference to this Full Bench. By bye-law No. 1, seven specified places within Municipal limits were 'fixed as stands for motor cars, lorries and hackney carriages' and bye-law No. 2 enjoined thatno motor oar or lorry plying for hire shall be allowed to halt or run for the purpose of searching passengers at any public street or place other than the stands fixed for the purpose.2. Bye-law No. 3 provided about the maximum speed limit of a lorry or car within the Municipal limits and then the following provision was made by bye-law No. 4:The places cited in Rule 1 above will not be us...
Bhola Ojha and anr. Vs. Dhaneshwar Ojha and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All677
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.O. It arises in the following circumstances. The plaintiffs Bhola Ojha and Deo Narain Singh instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Ballia, claiming possession over a holding of 14 bighas and 16 biswas with a declaration that a sale deed executed on 7th August 1931 in respect of the holding in dispute by one Mt. Parbati Kunwari was null and void and did not affect their rights. It was claimed in the alternative that even if it is found that Mt. Parbati Kunwari inherited the holding in dispute from her husband Ram Narain Singh, still it should be declared that the sale deed executed by her was invalid inasmuch as it was not supported either by legal necessity or by consideration and was consequently not binding on the plaintiffs. The facts alleged by the plaintiffs upon which the above reliefs were claimed may briefly be stated as follows : The holding in dispute which is admittedly a fixed...
Abdul Subhan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All46
1. These are two connected appeals and can be conveniently disposed of together. Abdul Subhan and Punwan or Punnoo, accused, in appeal No. 522 were tried in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Bijnor for an offence contrary to Sections 302/34, I.P.C. The charge against them was that they had murdered one Tulshi Gadaria of village Barharpura. Both the accused persons denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the guilt of both the accused appellants had been proved to his satisfaction. He therefore convicted them both and sentenced them to transportation for life. In the other case which has given rise to Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 1938 Abdul Subhan, accused, alone was prosecuted under Section 19(f), Arms Act. He has been held guilty by the learned Sessions Judge and has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. In both the cases the convicted persons have preferred appeals against their convictions and sentences. We will fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »