Allahabad Court December 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.
Mohammad Taqi Ahmad Khan Vs. Farmoodi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All181
Dar, J.1. The plaintiff, Mt. Farmoodi Begam, a Pathan lady of Shajahanpur, was married to Mohammad Taqi Ahmad Khan, a Pathan, resident of Shajahanpur, on 24th June 1908. By this union a number of children were born and two grown-up daughters are now living. In April 1934 some differences, apparently of a trivial nature, arose between the husband and wife and, after a married life of over 25 years, the plaintiff left her husband's home and has brought this suit for recovery of Rs. 40,000 against him. Her case, shortly stated, is that at the time of marriage her dower was fixed, 'without any specification, at a sum of Rs. 80,000 and two dinars' and that by a custom prevailing in the family and amongst the Pathans of Shajahanpur half of this is to be treated as prompt and. half as deferred. Her husband refuses to pay this sum or any other sum and she is entitled to recover the same by an action at law against him. The defendant denied the lady's dower to be Rs. 80,000 and he alleged that ...
Ganga Kuer Vs. Sukhjit Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All163
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge, Farrukhabad. The respondent, Sukhjit Singh and several other persons made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act, which was forwarded in due course to the Special Judge. The Special Judge in pursuance of the direction laid down in Section 9 of the Act, called upon all persons having claims in respect of private debts, both decreed and undecreed, against the person or the property of the landlord to present to the Special Judge within three months from the date of the publication of the notice, written statements of their claims. The appellant presented her claim after the expiry of time allowed by law. The written statement was therefore rejected. The appellant then preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge and preliminary objection was raised that the memorandum of appeal was not properly stamped. The learned District Judge upheld the objection and decided that an ad valor...
irshad Ali Vs. Mt. Nadari Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All179
Mohammad Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the civil Judge of Budaun reversing a decree of a Munsif of that district. Mt. Nadri Begum, plaintiff, brought a suit to recover Rs. 50 as arrears of Kharch pandan from defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of an agreement dated 2lst December 1937. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that the deed in question was ineffective for want of registration in accordance with law. The in strument in suit was executed by Irshad Ali, appellant, in favour of the respondent as a pre-nuptial agreement. In the document certain properties were hypothecated to secure the payment o the stipulated amount. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the property in Budaun town did not belong to the executant and therefore the sub-registrar of Budaun had no authority to register the document. In the deed some other properties outside the jurisdiction of the sub-registrar of Budaun were also hypothecated. It is now found as a fact that the plaintiff ...
Nimar Pandey Vs. Jagdish Pandey and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All166
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is a petition in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. It is directed against an order passed by the learned civil Judge of Benares refusing to entertain an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on the ground that it was barred by Rule 15 of Order 33, Civil P.C., in consequence of a previous application of the like nature having been dismissed for default. The relevant facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows:2. The petitioner Nimar Pandey made an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis on 21st December 1937. The Court directed him to file a copy of his petition for being served on the Government Pleader. He complied with that order on 8th January 1938 and the Court ordered a notice to be issued to the Government Pleader and the opposite party fixing 19th February 1938, presumably for the hearing of the application. The matter could not be heard and decided on that date because the applicant failed to file the necessary notices to be ser...
Achraj Singh Vs. Hardwar Nath and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All131
1. The question referred for decision to this Full Bench is as follows:Whether the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court by Section 115, Civil P.C., can be exercised with reference to appellate orders, passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 45, or revisional orders, passed under Section 46 of the Act, by a District Judge.2. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashraf v. Saith Mal : AIR1938All47 , and it was held in that case that, apart from the provisions contained in ch. 6, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, this Court had the power to interfere in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. In view of the somewhat involved provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of the Act the answer to the question referred to above was beset with difficulties of varying intensity and presumably because of those difficulties the Legislature stepped in and passed an Amending Act (Act No. 11 of 1939) by which amendments of far-reaching importance were made in Section 45 of the Act....
Ghulam Rashid Vs. Muhammad Abdul Rab and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All187
Braund, J.1. This is a first appeal from a decree of the Additional Civil Judge of Ballia. It raises a point of some little interest. The facts are comparatively simple. The plaintiff, Sheikh Ghulam Rashid, is the son of one Abdul Waheed who died on 15th March 1921 possessed of quite a substantial estate. Abdul Waheed left him surviving the plaintiff and four daughters. We are not concerned with the daughters in this suit, as they are not parties to it. At the date of his father's death, Sheikh Ghulam Rashid was a little boy of about six and ultimately he attained his majority on 2nd January 1933. Abdul Waheed, the plaintiff's father, had three brothers including one, I think he was the eldest brother, called Sheikh Abdul Ahad, who was defendant 1 to the suit and remained in that capacity until he died. Sheikh Abdul Ahad was actually the senior uncle of the plaintiff and it is common ground that he took possession, on the plaintiff's behalf, of the property comprising Abdul Waheed's es...
Ramgopal Sriniwas Vs. Net Ram and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All178
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff, an unregistered firm, sued for the price of certain goods supplied to the defendants. The only question raised in this appeal is as to whether Section 69, Partnership Act, applies to the plaintiff's suit. Section 69 prohibits unregistered firms from suing to recover money due to them for goods supplied. Section 74 of the Act, however, is to the effect:Nothing in this Act or any repeal effected thereby shall affect or be deemed to affect (a) any right, title, interest, obligation or liability, already ac quired, accrued or incurred before the commencement of this Act, or (b) any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, interest, obligation or liability, or anything done or suffered before the commencement of this Act.2. Learned Counsel maintained that in view of these latter provisions the learned civil Judge was not justified in dismissing the suit because the plaintiff was an unregiste...
Punjab Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Pt. Lachman Prasad Tewari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All73
Collister, J.1. The following questions have been referred to this Full Bench:(1) Whether a dispute between two cosharers as to whether a sir belongs exclusively to one or jointly to both raises a question o proprietary title and (2) which is the proper Court to decide such a dispute?2. For a proper decision of these questions it is necessary to consider the facts which have given rise to them. In village Poharia in the district of Gorakhpur the respondents, who are Tiwaris, acquired a 2 annas share. In 1913 and 1914 they obtained from the original proprietors of the village, Basdeo Singh and others, possessory mortgages over the remaining 14 annas; and thus they came to possess the whole village. Under authority granted to them by the terms of their mortgage bonds, they ejected tenants from various holdings, the total area of which was 80 acres, and they took this land under their own cultivation. Some of these plots were thereafter recorded in the village registers as their sir, pres...
DulhIn Janak Nandini Kunwari Vs. Kedar NaraIn Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All140
Allsop, J.1. This is an application requesting this Court to set aside in revision an order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Ballia on 24th August 1939. The applicant, Dulhin Janak Nandini Kunwari was the plaintiff in a suit in which she sought a declaration of her title to the Ausanganj Estate which was under the management of the Court of Wards at Ghazipur. In the course of this suit she made an application for the appointment of a receiver upon the ground that the Court of Wards was about to deliver over the estate to the defendant, B. Kedar Narain Singh. The Court fixed a date on which it proposed to dispose of the application and passed an order on 25th March 1939, restraining the defendant from taking possession of the estate in the meantime. It was alleged by Dulhin Janak Nandini Kunwari that B. Kedar Narain Singh disobeyed this order by making an application to the Court of Wards under Section 10, Court of Wards Act, to release the estate in his favour and she ap...
Sitaram Baburam Vs. Sitaram Lalman Through Tulsi Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All132
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff firm Sita Ram Babu Ram through Babu Ram. This firm instituted a suit against another firm Sita Ram Lalman through Tulsi Ram for the recovery of a certain sum of money based on a sarkhat dated 19th October 1933. The trial Court after giving relief on the question of interest to the defendant under the Agriculturists' Relief Act decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 2651-8-0. ' This decree was upset in appeal by the lower appellate Court on a finding that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time. The sarkhat contains the following entries on the debit side:Rs. 1958-1-0 : 19th of October 1933;Rs. 100-0-0 : 21st of October 1933;Rs. 50-0-0 : 19th of November 1933;and on the credit side the entries are:Rs. 100 : 21st of November 1933;Rs. 50 : 6th of June 1934.2. The suit was instituted on 14th December 1936, and unless the credit entry of 6th June 1934 can be invoked in aid by the plaintiff the suit would be barred by time. The credit entries, of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »