Allahabad Court March 1940 Judgments
Mt. Atiqa Begam and anr. Vs. Abdul Maghni Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All272
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench for decision is, whether the U.P. Regularization of Remissions Act (14 of 1938) is or is not intra vires the Legislature of the United Provinces. The reference arises under the following circumstances: A suit for arrears of theka money with respect to the years 1339 to 1341 Fasli (1932 to 1934 A.D.) was brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendants-respondents under Section 132, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926). The plaintiffs claimed the arrears at the rate of the annual rent reserved by the lease. The defendants inter alia pleaded that remissions in rent were allowed by the local Government in the years in suit and that, in calculating the amount due to the plaintiffs, the remissions should be taken into account. The plaintiffs, while admitting that in pursuance of the directions issued by the local Government remissions in rent were granted to the tenants in the years in question, maintained that the orders as to r...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi NaraIn Vs. Harish Chander and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All339
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by Harish Chander and Shiv Kumar plaintiffs against Murli, Baldeo and Mangal for arrears of rent from Kharif, 1341 to Rabi 1342 Fasli. The defendants contended that they had paid the rent in question in good faith to Lakshmi Narain. Under the provisions of Section 270, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926) Lakshmi Narain was impleaded as a defendant. The trial Court found that the rent had been paid by the aforesaid tenants to Lakshmi Narain, but not in good faith, and it decreed the suit. The tenants went up in appeal and impleaded Lakshmi Narain appellant as a pro forma respondent. The lower Appellate Court found that the rent had been paid by the tenants in good faith. It set aside the decree' of the trial Court against the tenants, but decreed the suit against Lakshmi Narain, who, as already stated, had been impleaded as a pro forma respondent. Lakshmi Narain has come here in second appeal. It has been conten...
Tag this Judgment!Sher Ali Vs. Hamid Ali and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All365
Thom, C.J.1. These are two appeals which may be conveniently disposed of in one judgment. First with regard to F.A. No. 73 of 1937. This appeal is by the defendant in a suit in which the plaintiffs claim possession of a certain share in property which at one time belonged to one Syed Madad Ali. Syed Madad Ali died on 24th December 1894. Shortly prior to his death, on 7th May 1893 he made a wakf of the property in which the plaintiffs claim a share. The plaintiffs averred that the wakf deed was invalid inasmuch as under the deed the wakif had reserved for himself a certain benefit in the shape of a maintenance allowance of Rs. 420 a year not as mutwalli, but in his private capacity as owner of the property. The defence to the suit is that the wakf deed of 7th May 1893 was a valid wakf. It was contended that the allowance which the wakif reserved for himself represented his salary as mautwalli. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs' claim to possession of a share in the property in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Singh and anr. Vs. Shiv Charan Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All422
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is an appeal by unsuccessful plaintiffs whose claim for pre-emption has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that a custom of pre-emption did not prevail in the village in dispute. The property sold is situated in village Garhia Madsua. This village is in pergana Patiyali. The plaintiffs are co-sharers in and the vendees are admittedly strangers to village Garhia Madsua. The defendants, however, contested the suit on the allegation that a custom of pre-emption did not prevail in the village. In proof of the existence of custom the plaintiff relied on a wajib-ul-arz of 1867. This wajib-ul-arz is a curious document. It is a wajib-ul-arz not with respect to any mahal or to any village but it purports to be a wajib-ul-arz of all the villages of Pargana Patiyali. A custom of pre-emption is recited in this wajib-ul-arz. The vendees on the other hand filed a copy of the wajib-ul-arz of village Garhia Madsua. In this wajib-ul-arz there is no mention of a...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanand Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All156
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal by one Pandit Parmanand, who has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eighteen months under Section 12-1A, Penal Code, for bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in British India. The appellant is alleged to have made a speech in Benares which was reported by a Sub-Inspector of Police. Learned Counsel argues that the speech as reported does not substantially represent what the appellant said, but I cannot accept this argument. In the first place, it was the duty of the Sub-Inspector to write down what the speaker was saying at the meeting and the natural assumption is that he would have written down what he heard rather than invent some passages which had never been spoken. There is no suggestion that the Sub-Inspector had any particular grudge against Pandit Parmanand or any desire to get him into trouble by representing that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Jumma and ors. Vs. L. Madhusoodan Dayal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1941All306
Iqbal Ahmad, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondents for possession of certain houses and for the recovery of a certain amount on account of rent and meane profits. The houses are situated in a sarai in the town of Hapur in the District of Meerut. The defendants are Bhatiaras who ordinarily make their living by lodging guests in the houses in their occupation. The plaintiffs' case was that they were the owners of the houses in dispute and had let out the same by means of a registered instrument dated 23rd June 1911, to Chhanga, father of defendants 1 and 2, on an annual rental of Rs. 6. Chhanga died about 20 years before the date of the suit and it was alleged in the plaint that defendants-1 and 2 were in possession in his place (uske bajai). The fact that a notice to terminate the tenancy was given to the defendants was also recited in the plaint. On these allegations the plaintiffs prayed for the reliefs mentioned above.2. Defendan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›