Allahabad Court January 1940 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.
Sheo Bandhan Pandey Vs. Kishun Prasad Pande and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All323
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The suit was decreed in the trial Court. On appeal the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The decree of the lower Appellate Court has been upheld in second appeal in this Court. This appeal is under the Letters Patent. One important question of law is presented for consideration in this appeal, namely as to whether a co-sharer has a right of pre-emption in the case of a transfer of land under Section 5, Regulation of Sales Act, 26 of 1934. Under the provisions of the Regulation of Sales Act, the Collector is in the case of the execution of a decree which has been transferred to him in pursuance of a notification 576/1A-93 dated 26th March 1932 made in virtue of the provisions of Section 68, Civil P. C, empowered to value the land sought to be sold under the decree and to give the decree-holder an option of taking the land at that valuation in satisfaction of his decree. The option is given to the decree...
Arya Co-operative Bank Society Vs. Pandit Shiv Charan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All482
Bennet, J.1. These are two second appeals brought by the Arya Co-operative Bank Society against decrees of the lower Appellate Court. The opposite party Pt. Shiv Charan was the plaintiff and the Society was the defendant. The first mentioned appeal is from a decree in O.S. No. 409 of 1936 and that suit dealt with an arbitration decree in case No. 39 of 1932. There was a member of the Society called Pran Sukh who owed the Society money and he died seven years before the suit. The Society claimed that the plaintiff represented Pran Sukh and plaintiff said he did not represent Pran Sukh. The Society then referred this matter to the Registrar under Rule 115, U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules of 1937. The Registrar referred the matter to an arbitrator Gauri Shankar and Gauri Shankar passed what purported to be a personal decree against the plaintiff in case No. 39 of 1932 of the arbitrator. The other original suit, No. 417 of 1936 which forms the subject of the second appeal No. 1984 of 193...
Har Dayal Vs. B. Ram Manohar Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All316
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. It arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs respondents to recover arrears of profits for 1339, 1340 and 1341 Fasli. The defendant is the lambardar. Plaintiff-respondent 1 is a co-sharer, while plaintiff-respondent 2 is his thekadar. The suit was brought for arrears of profits which accrued during the period of the theka. The defendant contended that the suit was time-barred, inasmuch as it had been brought more than one year after the expiry of the period of the theka. The trial Court decreed the suit, and its decree has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court as well as by the learned single Judge of this Court. It was contended for the appellant that the suit was time-barred and should have been dismissed. As already stated, plaintiff 1 is a cosharer, and plaintiff 2 is his thekadar. Under Section 199, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926),a thekadar is a farm...
Municipal Board Vs. L. Moradhuj
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All340
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed a sum of money on account of rent under an alleged contract between him and the Municipal Board of Etah. It appears that the officers of the Board agreed to take two plots of land on lease from the plaintiff to use as a motor stand. The matter was placed before the Board and a resolution was passed that the contract should be entered into and that the Secretary of the Board should sign the contract. The Secretary consequently signed an agreement with the plaintiff, but that was not sufficient under the U.P. Municipalities Act, to create a contract binding on the Board. The term of the agreement was that the Board should pay Rs. 25 a month as rent for these two plots, that is, it would pay a sum of Rs. 300 in the financial year. The relevant provision of Section 97, U.P. Municipalities Act, is that every contract made by or on behalf of a Board whereof the value and amount exceeds Rs. 250 shall be in wri...
Mt. Balo Vs. Mt. Parbati and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All385
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1. The suit was for sale on foot of a deed of simple mortgage executed by Mt. Munno in favour of Lachhman Das on 4th November 1925. The mortgagee, Lachhman Das, assigned his mortgagee rights to the plaintiff, Mt. Parbati, on 5th February 1930. The appellant was impleaded as defendant 1 on the allegation that she was in possession of the property. Mt. Jamuna was impleaded as defendant 2 on the allegation that it was stated that she was a daughter of Mt. Munno. The Courts below have decreed the suit. The principal point which learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued is that the Courts below having found that no legal necessity for the mortgage in suit had been proved, the suit should not have been decreed. It seems to us however that before the point of legal necessity can be raised, it must be shown that Mt. Munno was in possession of the property holding the limited estate of a Hindu woman. The Court of first instance states in i...
Gajraj Singh and anr. Vs. Kallu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All309
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by two defendants Gajraj Singh and Mt. Radha Kuar against concurring decrees in favour of the plaintiff of the two Courts below, The suit was brought in the Court of an Assistant Collector by one Kallu who was the owner of one biswa share in a certain patti. Three biswas share was owned by the appellants and Mt. Ram Devi, respondent 3. One biswa share was owned by Mt. Jwala Devi, respondent 2, who was lambardar. The plaintiff sued under Section 227, Tenancy Act of 1926. Issue 2 was:Whether any of the defendants had made collections beyond his legitimate share, and if so, to what extent?2. The patwari made a statement of accounts and in accordance with that statement the Court held that certain sums were due from the appellants to the plaintiff. It was not contended that the lambardar was entitled to collect the rent, nor was it contended that there was any legal usage or special contract by which a cosharer was entitled to receive separately his sha...
Mt. Daulta Kuer and ors. Vs. Ram Das Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All349
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against concurring decrees of the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff, a minor. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a mortgage deed executed by his father Ram Subhag on 28th May 1920 for Rs. 800 to the defendants was void against him and that a mortgage decree in Suit No. 450 of 1932 which was a preliminary decree for sale of ancestral property obtained against his father alone was also void against him. This decree was on the mortgage of 28th May 1920. The facts as found by the Courts below are that there was a mortgage of 5th August 1913 executed by Bachcha Rai who was a cousin of Ram Subhag and formed a joint family with him and Bachcha Rai was the head and manager of that joint family. This mortgage deed was in favour of Ram Baran Rai and others for Rs. 499. After this there was a partition between Ram Subhag and Bachcha Rai who were the only two members in the joint Hindu family. The mortgage deed of 1913 was allotte...
Emperor Vs. Ganga Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All260
Braund, J.1. This is a criminal reference to us from the Additional Sessions Judge of Cawnpore purporting to be made under Section 307, Criminal P.C. Two men were tried before him, each upon two charges, one under Section 435, I.P.C., which relates to doing damage by fire and the other under Section 454, I.P.C., which relates to lurking house trespass and house breaking. By the practice in force in these provinces the charge under Section 435 was triable in the Sessions Court with the aid of assessors, while the charge under Section 454 was triable by jury. In this case the jury acted in a dual capacity as both assessors and jurors. As a result of the trial the jury, in its capacity as a jury, acquitted the two accused upon the charge under Section 454 and, in their capacity as assessors expressed the opinion that they were not guilty of the charge under Section 435 either. The learned Judge, whose own opinion very evidently differed from that of the jury, thereupon without recording a...
Dal Chand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All195
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra, recommending that an order passed by the trial Magistrate should be set aside and the case should be retried according to law. The facts can briefly be stated as follows: One Dal Chand had made a report to the police against certain persons. The prosecution case was that report was false and Dal Chand was prosecuted under Section 182, Penal Code, for making a false report. The case was tried by Mr. Kehar Singh, a Magistrate of the First Class in the district of Agra. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge that he recorded the evidence of several prosecution and defence witnesses but the judgment written by him was as follows: 'Dal Chand is fined Rs. 25 or two months rigorous imprisonment in default.'2. The learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right in saying that this is no judgment at all. Under the law summary powers can be given to certain Magistrates and it is expected that such pow...
Ramai Chaubey Vs. Ram Datta Sonar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All314
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff-appellant sought to recover haq-i-chaharum from the defendant-respondent on account of a sale which took place on 27th November 1930. The plaintiff alleged that there was a custom under which he was entitled to make this claim. The defendant denied the existence of the custom. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has found that no custom has been proved. The only evidence consisted of some kabuliats dating from not earlier than the year 1922 and two or three deeds of sale executed about the year 1931. The kabuliats were documents executed by the vendees or lessees of certain building sites agreeing that they would pay haq-i-chaharum if they transferred the buildings which they erected. The learned Judge has said that the evidence is quite insufficient to establish a custom. In my judgment, his finding is right, if this is strictly speaking a question of custom at all. I know that it appears always to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »