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.
Zamir Ahmad Vs. Mt. Quamar-un-nisa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All55
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:(a) That it may be established that the document known as the wakfnama, dated 20th July 1929, executed by Sheikh Fazal Ahmad is null and void and illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to and is the owner of a three-eighth share in the property specified below, and also it may be established that the parties are bound by the agreement, dated 6th November 1931, and registered on 11th January 1932, and on 2nd March 1932, and that the plaintiff may be awarded possession over a three-eighth share of the property specified below, and that defendants 1 and 2 may be dispossessed therefrom; Laid at Rs. 26,250. And if the right and possession of defendant 11 is proved, in that case possession may be awarded on dispossession of defendant 11. (b) That a decree may be passed awarding Rs. 1125 as mesne profits on account of the plaintiffs share for three years from 1337 Fasli ...
Chaubey Mangan Lal Vs. Chaubey Brahm Dutt and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All88
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Chaubey Mangan Lal whose claim for pre-emption has been dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Agra. Defendant 2, Chaubey Gulzari Lal, sold certain zamindari property specified at the foot of the plaint to Chaubey Brahm Dutt, defendant 1, and the plaintiff Chaubey Mangan Lal alleged that he was a cosharer in mauza Chandarpur where the property sold was situate and that his name was recorded in the khewat. Defendant 1 was said to be a stranger. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present appeal to go into the other allegations of the plaintiff or to discuss the various pleas taken in the written statement excepting one, namely that the plaintiff was not a cosharer in mauza Chandarpur as required by the Agra Pre-emption Act and that at the most he could be called a petty proprietor of only particular plots. For that reason the defendant vendee alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit. The Court below has upheld...
Mohammad Umar Vs. Abdul Ghani and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All728
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession over a house upon the allegation that defendant 1, Mohammad Umar, was the tenant of the plaintiff Abdul Ghani and of defendant 2, Jagat Ram. The fact that Abdul Ghani and Mohammad Umar are related is not denied. Mohammad Umar is the grandson of Pir Bux and Abdul Ghani is the grandson of Nathwa. These two men Pir Bux and Nathwa were brothers. Nathwa had three sons Mohammad Ismail, Jangoo and Makhdum Bux. Abdul Ghani, the plaintiff, is the son of Mohammad Ismail. According to the Judge of the lower Appellate Court both parties were agreed that the house in suit and three other houses had belonged originally to the father of Nathwa and Pir Bux and that there was a partition by which the houses went to various members of the family. Abdul Ghani maintains that the house in suit went to Nathwa's branch and Mohammad Umar says that it went to the branch of Pir Bux. According to Abdul Ghani Mohammad Ismail, Jangoo and Makhdum B...
Chiranji Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All734
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Chiranji Lal who has been convicted by a First Class Magistrate in a summary trial of an offence under Section 3, Gambling Act. From the judgment of the learned trying Magistrate which is the only record in the case, it appears that the charge against the applicant was that ha was keeping his shop as a gaming house for satta gambling. There is nothing in the judgment of the learned Magistrate to show what constituted the alleged gambling and what was the commodity in respect of which the gambling was going on. Several points of fact and law have been taken by the learned Counsel for the applicant in challenging the conviction; but the most important one which is sufficient for deciding this application is that it was incumbent for the prosecution under the law to prove by definite evidence the commodity in respect of which the alleged satta gambling was going on. The vague and general statement by the prosecution witnesses that...
Uma Shanker Vs. Ram Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All689
ORDERGanga Nath, j.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against the defendant for possession of a house described in the plaint, as the nearest reversioner of Har Narain, the last male owner of the property in dispute. The defendant contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner of Har Narain and that he had relinquished his reversionary rights under an agreement dated 2nd November 1888. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner of Har Narain and the agreement relied on by the defendant was void under Section 6(a), T.P. Act. It decreed the suit. On appeal the learned Civil Judge disposed of the case merely on the ground of the deed of relinquishment dated 2nd November 1888. The learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that the plaintiff was estopped from asserting his claim as reversionary heir. He relied on Nakched Choudhury v. Sukhdev Choudhuri : AIR1930All430 and Raghubir Dutt v. Narain Dutt : AIR1930All...
Sadiq Ali and ors. Vs. Zahida Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All744
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought against thorn by the plaintiff-respondent to recover Rs. 10,000 for her dower and interest thereon. The plaintiff is the widow of Khan Bahadur Tasadduq Husain. The defendants arcs his other heirs. It was not contested that her dower was Rs. 10,000. The defendants contended that it had been paid up by the assignment of three assurance policies of Rs. 6000 each by the plaintiff's husband before his death. The learned Civil Judge found against the defendants and decreed the suit. It is not denied by the plaintiff that three assurance policies of Rs. 6000 each were assigned to her by her husband, K.B. Tasadduq Husain, before his death. The defendants' case was that thin assignment was made to her in lieu of her dower, while the plaintiff contended that the assignment was made on account of love and affection and not in lieu of her dower. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the dower was paid up b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›