Allahabad Court July 1940 Judgments
Rafiq Ahmed Vs. Babu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All452
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. It arises out of an interpleader suit. The applicant, Rafiq Ahmad, was one of the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed in the following circumstances: One Mukandi Lal acting as the guardian of minor named Kanhaiya Lal let out a shop on rent to the plaintiff in the suit, namely Babu Ram. Later on, Kanhaiya Lal executed a sale deed in respect of that shop in favour of the applicant, Rafiq Ahmad. In spite of having executed that deed, Kanhaiya Lal claimed that he was the sole proprietor of the shop, alleging that he was a minor at the date of the execution of the sale deed and hence the sale transaction was wholly void. There were thus two rival claimants to the shop occupied by the plaintiff, Babu Ram, who owed Rs. 54 as rent for it for a certain specified period. It was in these circumstances that Babu Ram filed the interpleader suit. He valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 7000 an...
Tag this Judgment!Rampat Singh and anr. Vs. B. Nageshar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All455
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment and damages. The respondents alleged that they were zamindars of certain plots and a certain area was their khudkasht and that the defendants had taken possession of the same without their consent. The learned District Judge in the lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendants from an area of .06 acres and he has awarded the sum of Rupees 1-8-0 as damages against the defendants. In appeal it was contended that the suit was barred by the provisions of Sections 266 and 44, Agra Tenancy Act. So far as Section 266 is concerned in our judgment the suit is not barred. It is true that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the other cosharers in the mahal in which the plots in dispute are situated, but the plaintiffs are the only persons who are interested in the khudkasht rights which they seek to protect in the present suit. Section 266, Agra Tenancy Act, enjoins that where the...
Tag this Judgment!Peyare Lal Vs. Mt. Misri and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All453
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration that the house described in the plaint belonged to them. There was a firm Kure Mal Kallu Mal. Bhagwan Das and Durga Prasad were its partners. The property in dispute, as has been found by both the lower Courts, belonged to this firm. On 17th August 1933 Bhagwan Das sold the property in dispute to the plaintiffs. On the next day, that is 18th August 1933 the same property was sold by Durga Prasad to the defendant. Both the sale deeds were registered on the same day, 18th August 1933. The firm was subsequently dissolved by an award, dated 24th July 1935. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's sale deed was invalid inasmuch as Bhagwan Das had no right to sell the partnership property. The trial Court found that, though Bhagwan Das had no right to sell the property to the plaintiffs yet the sale was ratified in the arbitration proceedings by Durga Prasad and th...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Roop Chand JaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All456
Thom, C.J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of taxes. The plaintiff is the Municipal Board of Cawnpore. Defendants 2 and 3 are auction purchasers of certain property which was owned by defendant 1. It appears that defendant 1 has not paid his taxes to the Municipal Board for a period of eleven years. In this action the Corporation seek to recover the amount due in respect of arrears from the defendants by sale of the property purchased by defendants 2 and 3 in respect that it has a charge over that property in virtue of the terms of Section 177, Municipalities Act of 1916. Section 177 is in the following terms:All sums due on account of a tax imposed on the annual value of building or lands or of both shall, subject to the prior payment of the land revenue (if any) due to His Majesty thereupon, be a first charge upon such buildings or lands.2. In respect of arrears of taxes therefore there is conferred upon the Municipal Board by statute ...
Tag this Judgment!Raj NaraIn Dube Vs. Syed Imam Raza and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All457
Thom, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The plaintiff in the suit seeks possession of a share in grove-land in the village Deolasi in the district of Mirzapur. This share in the grove-land appertains to a 5 annas 4 pies share in mahal No. 69. The share belongs to one Ghasiawan. Ghasiawan sold three-quarters of his share in the village and retained to himself a 1 anna 4 pies share. He exempted from the sale deed his share in the grove-land which appertained to the zamindari. The plaintiff Syed Imam Raza is an auction-purchaser at the sale of the said remaining 1 anna 4 pies share which Ghasiawan retained in the mahal. He claims that in purchasing this 1 anna 4 pies share he purchased the one-third share in the grove-land which was owned by Ghasiawan. The defendants on the other hand maintained that only one-twelfth of the grove-land passed to the plaintiff by the auction sale. The remainder remained with Ghasiawan and on his death passed to his re...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwati Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940All465
ORDERBraund, J.1. This revision application must be allowed. It is an application by three men, Bhagwati Prasad, Bajrang Bali and Prag, who have been convicted and sentenced by a Magistrate of Fatehpur, under Section 188, I.P.C., in respect of an alleged disregard by them of an order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., promulgated by a Sub-Divisional Officer. It seems that, at the time, disturbances were feared in the village of Haswa between the Hindus and the Muslims of the place. The Sub-Divisional Officer, therefore, thought it right to make an order under Section 144, Criminal P.C., prohibiting the collection of bricks and other materials that might be used as missiles in the village. I have carefully read the whole of this order. It is a long, loosely worded and rambling order which leaves much, in my opinion, to be desired. Orders of this kind should, I think, be short, simple and absolutely clear. If they are not, they lose almost the whole of their value and become extremely dif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›