Allahabad Court September 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.
Babu Govind Das and anr. Vs. Mt. Indrawati and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All38
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dismissing a civil application in revision. It is conceded that the case does not fall within the purview of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 109 and Section 110, Civil P.C., but it is maintained that in view of the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 109 the case should be certified to be a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The facts giving rise to the present application may be briefly stated as follows: Mt. Indrawati, respondent, filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge of Muttra against Rai Saheb Govind Das and certain other defendants. The value of the subject-matter of the suit was Rs. 18,00,000. The suit was for a declaration that Indrawati, plaintiff, was the next reversioner after her mother Mt. Bhagwati of the property left by her father Kalyan Singh who was alleged to be separate from Govind Das and the other member...
Ram Chander Vs. Mt. Rure Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All738
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit against an agent for the recovery of money collected by him on account of his principal. The only question that has been argued is whether the suit was barred by limitation. It is not denied that Article 89 of Schedule 1 to the Limitation Act applies to this suit. The only question is when the period of limitation began to run. If it so began to run on 17th March 1933, when according to the Court below notice of revocation of the agency was served on the agent, then the suit is within time. On the other hand, if it began to run on the date when the letter containing the revocation was consigned to the post, then the suit is barred. Learned Counsel has relied upon Section 201, Contract Act. He has also, referred to the provisions of Section 208 which, he argues, give the agent a right as though the agency continued but do not burden, him with any liabilities. His point is that the agent's rights are secured by Section 208, but the rig...
Asharfi Lal and anr. Vs. Zamir Fatima Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All29
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs whose suit for redemption was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that it was time-barred. The question of limitation is the only one raised in this second appeal. The plaintiffs sued for redemption of a mortgage by conditional sale executed on 7th August 1872. The relevant clause for the purpose of limitation in this deed is as follows:Bawaz mubligh 1203-1-6 mazkura bala he rehan miadi do sal yani bai bilwafa kar diya wa tamam wa kamal zare saman apna murtahinse wasul paya ab dame wa dirame yaftani mera zimme murtahin he baqi nahin hai aur igrar yeh hai ki andar do sal he jab rupya mahina Sawan men nagd yekmusht ada harden tab us sal jasdad haqiyat apni fak rehan kara lewen aur agar andar do sal he rupya ada na ho to bad do sal he yeh bai bilwafa bai Kamil hojaga aur murtahin malik mustaqil shai marhuna ha hoga.2. The trial Court interpreted this mortgage to mean that redemption coul...
Attar Singh Vs. Asa Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All732
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of an enclosure No. 416. Inside this enclosure there are several buildings or sub-divisions Nos. 994 to 1001. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has confirmed the decree except about the sub-divisions Nos. 995, 996 and 997. In respect of these three sub-divisions the Judge has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had any title to the property. It appears that these three sub-divisions were in the year 1867 owned or possessed by three men, Ishwari, Bhawani and Khairati, while the sub-divisions Nos. 994 and 998 to 1000 were owned or possessed by one Amrut, No. 1001 was common court-yard. The grandsons of Amrit were Sheo Dat, Shugan Chand and Nihal Chand. Shugan Chand, on 23rd February 1920, executed a deed of sale by which he purported to transfer the whole of the subdivisions Nos. 994 and 997 to 1000 to Munshi Ram, Bucha Mal a...
Shri Madan Mohanji and anr. Vs. Kishna Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All57
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff Mt. Kishna Kuar claims a decree for possession over certain property. This property is detailed in the plaint. It consists of (1) a shop, (2) a zamindari share in Village Orchhi and (3) a temple in Chandausi. Item 3 is described as follows:A moiety share in the pucca built double-storied haveli together with all the four boundary walls, enclosure appertaining thereto, situate in Chandausi, mohalla Kaithal Darwaza, known as temple of the value of Rs. 14,000.2. What the plaintiff claims under this head is the temple, not a half-share in the temple. The temple itself was built upon the half-share of an enclosure which was allotted in a partition to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the widow of Chadammi Lal who died in 1887. Chadammi Lal was survived by two widows, Mt. Parbati and the plaintiff Mt. Kishna Kuar. Mt. Parbati at the time of Chadammi Lal's death was 18 years old and Mt. Kishna Kuar 17 years. ...
Shiam Sunder Lal Vs. Sarmadi Begam and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All171
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Pt. Shiam Sunder Lal and arises out of Original Suit No. 30 of 1935. It is connected with First Appeal No. 119 of 1936 which arises out of Original Suit No. 40 of 1935. The two suits were decided by the Court below by a single judgment and we also propose to decide the two appeals by a single judgment. The plaintiff in both the cases is Pt Shiam Sundar Lal and the defendant in both the cases is Mt. Sarmadi Begam. The suits were suits for pre-emption. The Tender in both the cases is Aftab Ahmad Khan and he sold one item of property by a sale deed dated 10th August 1934, and another item of property by a sale deed dated 23rd October 1934. The vendee Mt. Sarmadi Begam in both the cases is the wife of Aftab Ahmad Khan. Suit No. 30 of 1935 was filed on 9th August 1935 and related to the sale of 10th August 1934. Suit No. 40 of 1935 was filed on 15th October 1935 and related to the sale of 23rd October 1934. There is yet another transaction to...
Anant Rai and anr. Vs. Bhagwan Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All12
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant vendees in a pre-emption suit. The plaintiff respondent has also assailed the decree of the Court below by a cross-appeal which has been numbered as First Appeal No. 327 of 1935. The dispute in both the appeals is about the consideration of the sale sought to be pre-empted. The sale sought to be pre-empted was effected on 22nd July 1933 by Kailashpati Rai, defendant 3, in favour of Anant Rai and Trilok Rai, defendants 1 and 2. The property sold was an area of 24 bighas, 1 biswas, 4 dhurs in patti Mukhraj Rai, mohal Debi Rai of village Pipra Kalan in the district of Ballia. Village Pipra Kalan is a bigha daham village. The revenue of the property sold was Rs. 17-6-0 and the consideration entered in the sale deed was Rs. 13,000. This sale consideration was made up of the following items:1. Due on a simple mortgage dated 4th January 1929 executed by Kailashpati Rai in favour of Anant Rai and Trilok Rai vendees ... Rs. 60002. Due on a posses...
Akbar HusaIn Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All7
Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C. It appears that the appellant, Akbar Husain, gave evidence in the Court of the Special Judge, First Grade, Mirzapur, in a case under the Encumbered Estates Act. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had committed perjury and has accordingly made a complaint against him under Section 476, Criminal P.C. It is obvious to my mind that in taking action under Section 476, Criminal P.C., the learned Special Judge has acted only as a Civil Court irrespective of the fact that the Court is further invested with special powers under the Encumbered Estates Act. The learned Special Judge is primarily Civil Judge of Mirzapur and if he takes any action under Section 476, Criminal P.C. in an ordinary civil case, whatever its valuation, his order would be appealable to the District Judge and not to this Court. Section 476-B clearly provides that a person against whom a complaint has been mademay appeal to the...
Sultan Ahmad Vs. Gauhar Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All108
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by defendant 1 against a decree in favour of the plaintiff of the Civil Judge of Moradabad directing that the sale deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff be registered if presented to the proper registering officer within thirty days of the date of the decree. The facts are that there was a sale deed dated 23rd December 1935 executed by defendant 1, Hafiz Sultan Ahmad, a vakil of Moradabad, in favour of the plaintiff Nawab Gauhar Begam who is the wife of Prince Jafar Ali Khan, resident in Rampur State. The sale deed was executed by defendant 1 in accordance with the direction of the Insolvency Court and defendant 1 was the receiver in an insolvency case. Page 29 shows the document, which was one in which there was an admission of Rs. 26,600 as paid before registration, and a provision for the payment in cash at the time of registration of Rs. 11,400. The total sale consideration was Rs. 38,000. The Sub-Registrar on 23rd December 1935...
Mangal Sen Vs. Kewal Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All75
Verma, J.1. The appellant, Mangal Sen, was defendant 17 in the suit, which was for the enforcement of a mortgage of 30th August 1922 executed by three brothers, Chandu Lal, Nandan Lal and Bansi Lal, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant was impleaded as a defendant on the allegation that he was a subsequent purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged property. The appellant's contention was that he had, after purchasing on 20th April 1933 a portion of the mortgaged property, paid off a sum of Rs. 4180 to Joti Prasad who held a prior mortgage of 25th August 1921 executed by Bansi Lal alone. The appellant asserted in his written statement in para. 1 of the 'further pleas' that the plaintiff could not get the property purchased by the appellant sold in enforcement of his mortgage. In para. 2 he alleged that he was not a subsequent purchaser, nor was the property purchased by him liable to be sold for the satisfaction of the amount due to the plaintiff. In para. 3 he stated that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »