Allahabad Court February 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.
Alimullah Vs. Mohammad Khalil and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All478
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by Alimullah, defendant-vendee, arising out of a pre-emption suit. The vendee contested the suit inter alia on the ground that Mohammad Khalil, plaintiff respondent, had no preferential right of pre-emption as against him. This contention of the vendee was overruled by both the Courts below and Mohammad Khalil's suit was decreed in part. In order to appreciate this contention of the vendee, it is necessary to state the following facts: On 1st July 1935, Mohammad Yakub vendor entered into a transaction of exchange with Alimullah. The transaction was effected by a registered instrument. By the deed of exchange, Yakub transferred a one pie share to Alimullah in the village in which the pre-empted property is situated, and Alimullah in exchange gave to Yakub two specific plots in another village called Nagaria. Thereafter, on 22nd July 1935, Yakub sold a four pies share to Alimullah for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 374. Mohammad Khalil, plaintiff-r...
B. Lallo Singh Vs. Jamna Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All320
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of two plots. Harihar Prasad, the uncle of the plaintiff, executed a perpetual lease on 18th May 1918 in respect of the two plots in suit in favour of the defendant-respondent, the latter being given the right to build a house, to construct a well, to plant trees and to lay out a garden on the aforesaid plots. The plaintiff was at that time a minor. After attaining majority the plaintiff instituted the suit for possession out of which this appeal arises, alleging inter alia that the lease had been executed without any legal necessity by his uncle and that it was void, ineffectual and inoperative as against him. The defence was that the suit was time-barred, that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and therefore the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court, that the lease was executed for legal necessity, that the property had been improved and constructions had been erected at a cost of Rs. 10,0...
Matru Mal and anr. Vs. Mehri Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All311
1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiffs who are minors suing under the guardianship of their grandmother seek a declaration that certain deeds of alienation are void and not binding upon them. In the plaint the plaintiffs averred that their mother Mt. Mahadevi who was the daughter of Chunni Lal, the last male owner of the property in dispute, had without legal necessity alienated part of Chunni Lal's estate. In this appeal we are concerned only with one alienation, namely a mortgage dated 8th March 1927 in favour of the defendant Mt. Mehri Kunwar, and a decree obtained on the basis thereof dated 12th March 1931. The original and main defence to the suit was that the mortgagor Mt. Mahadevi was not a limited owner but a full owner of the property mortgaged under a will executed by her father Chunni Lal on 22nd February 1897. The learned Civil Judge in the trial Court held upon a consideration of the terms of the said will that Mt. Mahadevi was absolu...
B. Jairaj Singh and ors. Vs. B. Har NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All414
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a vendees' appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. The sale sought to be pre-empted was effected on 22nd August 1936. The price entered in the sale deed was Rs. 500. On the date of the sale the plaintiff and the vendor were cosharers in the same patti while the vendees were cosharers in another patti. The plaintiff therefore claimed a preferential right of pre-emption. He also alleged that the real sale consideration was only Rs. 200 and that an inflated amount of consideration was entered in the sale deed with a view to defeat the right of pre-emption. The vendees contested the suit. They denied that the plaintiff had a preferential right of pre-emption and maintained that the consideration entered in the sale deed was correct. On the question of sale consideration the trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case and held that Rs. 200 was the true consideration. The lower Appellate Court on the other hand held that the amount entered in the sale deed, viz. Rs....
Azhar HusaIn Vs. Mansab
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All324
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. He sued for a perpetual injunction in respect to a piece of land; and in the alternative he prayed for possession thereof. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had obtained this plot from one Sheikh Hamiduddin, a proprietor of the village, whose chhaoni stood on the plot, that the plaintiff built a house on the site of the aforesaid chhaoni and that he was using the vacant space to the east of his house as his sahan-darwaza. It was further alleged that the defendant had interfered when the plaintiff wanted to enclose the sahan with a wall and that he had also changed the direction of a drain, so that the water fell on to this plot. The suit was contested on various grounds. A referee was appointed, and in pursuance of his statement the trial Court decreed the suit for an injunction in respect to a specified area of this plot. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, relying upon the cases in Mt. Manbi v. Kodu and Ma...
Baldeo and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All263
Collister, J.1. This is a reference arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1939. There are three appellants and they have appealed from their conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. Their names are Baldeo, Lakhan and Tirmal. Evidence was admitted at the trial to the effect that Tirmal, while in custody of the police, stated to the second officer that the knife with which he and the other two appellants had murdered the deceased was at his house and that he could give it to the police officer if he were taken to the house. It is in evidence that Tirmal was thereafter escorted to his house and he unearthed a knife from under a heap of rice straw. The knife had stains of blood on it which was subsequently found to be of human origin. The following question has been referred to this Full Bench:What portion, if any, of the statement to the effect that 'the knife with which he and Baldeo and Lakhan, had murdered Maharaj Singh was at his house under a heap of pyal' alleged to have been made b...
Sadho Saran Pande Vs. Beni Madho Ojha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All511
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit. In order to appreciate the reasons that have led me to differ from the lower Appellate Court it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. On 14th September 1934, defendants third party executed a sale deed of certain zamindari share in favour of Beni Madho, defendant first party. The ostensible consideration entered in the sale deed was Rs. 399-15-0. Further, on the same date defendants third party executed a perpetual lease with respect to certain sir plots appertaining to the share sold in favour of defendants second party, who are the sons of Beni Madho, defendant first party. Two rival suits for preemption were filed. One of these suits was numbered as suit No. 385 of 1935 and the other suit that was filed by Sadho Saran who is the appellant in the present appeal was numbered as suit No. 399 of 1935. In his plaint Sadho Saran, plaintiff-appellant, alleged that defendants first and second party w...
Mt. Kishni Vs. Murli Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All344
Rachhpal Singh, J.1. The principal point for determination in these cases is as to whether the order of the Court below holding that the claim was barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 9, Clause (3), Encumbered Estates Act, was correct. Section 9, Clause (3), Encumbered Estates Act, ordained as follows:The written statement must be presented within the period specified in the notice, unless the claimant satisfies the Special Judge that he had sufficient cause for not presenting it within such period, in which case the Special Judge may receive the statement if presented within a further period of two months.2. The effect of this clause was that the creditor of the landlord applicant had to file his written statement within a total period of five months and if that was not done the Court had no power to give any further extension of time. It may in these circumstances be conceded that when the Courts below held that the written statements in these cases were not file...
Girdhari Lal Vs. Kishore Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All338
ORDERAllsop, J.1. This is an application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Agra has given the plaintiff a decree for money. The defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff maintained that limitation was saved by a payment of Rs. 5 on 17th November 1935. This payment was not appropriated towards principal and it is clear that it was not a payment of interest as such. The learned Judge says, relying on paras. 10 and 11 of the written statement, that the payment must have been towards interest. These two paragraphs do not justify that conclusion. It is clear that the defendant was relying upon the point that the payment was not towards interest as such. It does not follow that the payment was towards principal. A Full Bench of this Court has made a distinction in Udaypal Singh v. Lakshmi Chand : AIR1935All946 . In order to save limitation, in the view of this Court, the payment must either be towards principal and...
Mt. Kaniz Kubra Bibi Vs. Syed Muzaffar-ud-dIn Haider and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All462
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the two lower Courts. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to an annuity of Rs. 75 per annum under a deed of wakf executed on 13th January 1927 by Mt. Nabihan, the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff. The two defendants are maternal grandsons of Mt. Nabihan. The mother of the plaintiff and the mother of the defendants were sisters and daughters of Mt. Nabihan. On the same date on which the deed of wakf was executed Mt. Nabihan also executed a deed of gift in favour of the two defendants. Mt. Nabihan was a Shia. The Courts below have found that the deed of wakf is not valid. The plaint does not state under what law the wakfnama was valid, but the trial Court assumed that the plaintiff claimed under Act 6 of 1913, the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, and held that it was not valid under that Act chiefly because there was no ultimate deed of gift for religious, pious or charitable purposes. The plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »