Allahabad Court April 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.
Noor Mohammad and ors. Vs. Zainul AbdIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All399
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal involving a matter of very small value. The suit was a partition suit. It is important to observe that. The pedigree by which the interests of the contesting parties is traced is a complicated one and I do not propose to set it out in every detail. To put the matter as shortly as it can be put, there was a property which many years ago was in the ownership of a common ancestor named Hayatan. Hayatan had three sons, Abdul Rahman, Suleman and Ibrahim, the first-named by his first wife and the two last-named by a second wife. The property in question which is sought to be partitioned in this suit was, it is said in the joint ownership of Suleman and Ibrahim. The plaintiffs who are three in number trace their title through Ibrahim and the defendants trace their title through Suleman. Defendant 6 is a formal party. The half-share of the property which devolved upon the death of Ibrahim together with a further 20 out of 192 shares devolved, according to t...
Emperor Vs. Mihi Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All396
ORDERRachhpal Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Kumaun recommending that the commitment made by a Magistrate under which Mihi Lal, Pyare Lal, Kunj Behari Lal and Bishan Giri have been committed to Sessions to take their trial under Sections 366 and 120-B, I.P.C., be quashed. Section 215, Cri. P.C., ordains that:a commitment once made under Section 213 by a competent Magistrate...can be quashed by the High Court only, and only on a point of law.2. Now there may be cases in which there is no evidence to warrant a commitment; then there may be another class of cases in which commitment is made on no legal evidence at all. In such cases action may be taken under 8. 215, Criminal P.C. This Court however will not quash commitments where there is a prima facie case against the persons who have been committed to take their trial to a Court of Session. In such cases no legal question arises and so the Court has no power to quash the commitment. It appears to me th...
Sultan Ahmad Khan Vs. JalaluddIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All370
Thom C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and damages under Section 40, Agra Tenancy Act. The parties are cosharers in a certain mahal, and the plaintiff claims to be the lambardar. He seeks to eject Mohammad Khan and Jalaluddin from certain plots which once, according to the averments of the parties, was a grove. On 13th September 1934, Mohammad Khan sold his share in the mahal to the plaintiff Sultan Ahmad Khan. He exempted from sale the aforementioned grove. In that grove as a cosharer Mohammad Khan had a share along with the other cosharers. In 1935, according to the averments of the plaintiff, Mohammad Khan cut down the trees of the grove and then allowed the defendant Jalaluddin to enter into possession of the land. In these circumstances the plaintiff as lambardar and zamindar instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for the ejectment of the defendants. A number of questions have been raised during the hearing of this appeal, includi...
Mohammad Zaman Khan Vs. Bahadur Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All371
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was one for pre-emption of Bundelkhand land. It was defended by both the vendor and the vendee. The trial Court granted a decree for pre-emption. The learned Civil Judge in the lower Appellate Court however recalled the decree of the Munsif and dismissed the suit. His decision has been upheld by this Court in second appeal. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a cosharer in the mahal in which the property in dispute is situated. The property is Bundelkhand land and the vendee is a stranger to the mahal. Apart from the special provisions in the Agra Pre-emption Act and the Bundelkhand Alienation of Land Act, the plaintiff is entitled according to local custom to pre-empt. His suit has been dismissed however upon the ground that his right to pre-empt is destroyed by the provisions of Section 7, Pre-emption Act. Section 7 is in the following terms:Nothing in this Act shall confe...
Jainti Prasad Vs. Nanak Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All441
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal raising a curious point. On 4th March 1937 the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent for some Rs. 1600 and on 17th March he began execution proceedings against the respondent for the purpose of obtaining his arrest. On 8th April notice was served on the judgment-debtor to show cause why he should not be arrested and 16th April was fixed as the day for hearing that application. Two days however before the hearing, a sum of Rs. 825 was paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. It is not quite true to say that this sum was 'paid,' because it was provided only as to Rs. 400 in cash the remaining Rs. 425 taking the form of a transfer to the decree-holder of certain property of that value. On 16th April, the day fixed for the hearing of the arrest-matter, the decree-holder did not turn up and it was dismissed for default. Pausing at that point, the inference is irresistible that the effect of the payment made on the 14th was that the ...
Lala Har NaraIn Lal Bahal Vs. Mathura Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All326
ORDERGanga Nath, J.1. This is an appeal by a decree-holder against an order of execution Court staying execution of a decree under the Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act (10 of 1937). The decree is for costs. Two questions arise in this case: (1) whether a decree for costs is one to which the Act applies, and (2) whether an appeal lies from such an order. As regards the first point, it has been held by a learned single Judge in Ex. F.A. No. 217 of Ram Narain v. Ashagri Begum, Ex. F.A. No. 217 of 1939 decided on 8th January 1940 that the Act does not apply to a decree for costs. It was observed there:He (learned Counsel) suggests that a decree for costs is a decree for money. In so far as that goes the liability to pay costs was not incurred before the Act came into force.2. As regards the second point, there are conflicting decisions. In S.A. No. 687 of Shib Charan Das v. Brij Mohan Singh, reported in it has been held by a learned single Judge that an appeal lies. There...
Ganesh Lal Vs. SharafuddIn Ahmad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All402
Braund, J.1. This is a little second appeal which is brought by one of the defendants. If I understand the matter rightly the defendants were the owners or zamindars in respect of the plots among others with which we are concerned in this suit. In 1916 they executed a usufructuary mortgage over these lands in favour of the plaintiffs. On the following day the defendants agreed to take a lease of the particular parcels of land with which we are dealing at a rent of Rs. 186-12-0 per annum. In pursuance of that agreement they paid that rent from 1916 to 1931. In January of 1931 the defendants sold the property to the plaintiffs, the mortgagees, and thereby the defendants became ex-proprietary tenants and on 3rd March 1932 the defendants made an application to the Collector under Section 36, Land Revenue Act, to have a rent fixed in respect of the property in which their ex-proprietary right had been created. It is common ground that before the Collector made his order fixing the rent an a...
Vishwanath Bhartiya Vs. Ram Naran Das Jagannath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All405
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit in which the plaintiff sued the defendant for a sum of Rupees 6127-8-0 alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant in respect of the price of seventy-five bales of gunny bags. On 3rd March 1937 the plaintiff contracted to sell one hundred and fifty bales of gunny bags to the defendant. Seventy-five bales fell to be delivered on 15th Chait Sudi and seventy-five on 15th Baisakh Sudi, i.e. on 25th May 1937. The seventy-five bales deliverable on 15th Chait Sudi were duly delivered and paid for. The seventy-five bales deliverable on 25th May 1937 however were not, according to the defendant, delivered to him. The defendant therefore repudiated the plaintiff's claim for the price of these bales. The plaintiff maintained that he in fact did deliver seventy.five bales in Baisakh Sudi to the defendant. Para. 6 of his plaint is as follows:That consequent upon the delivery of the goods to him the defendant became liable to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›