Allahabad Court January 1941 Judgments
Babu Balmakund Gupta Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-29-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All295
Braund, J.1. This is a first appeal from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly in which a preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent to the valuation of the appeal by the appellant. In order to decide this preliminary objection it will be necessary to refer to the facts. The suit was brought by the Secretary of State complaining that the defendants motorgarage and showroom situated in a busy thoroughfare of Bareilly city encroached upon Government land and the Secretary of State sought on that account an order upon the defendant, in effect, to pull down that part of it which trespassed on Government property. In addition he claimed damages. It is not necessary for the present appeal to go through all the complicated facts in great detail. It is sufficient to tell the story in. outline only. The defendant in 1923 or 1924 was minded to build this motor garage and showroom and for that purpose he took on lease a piece of land. Having taken that piece of land, he start...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Hidayat Beg Vs. Seth Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All225
Dar, J.1. On 16th-July 1922, Behari Lal, a Hindu, owner of a valuable estate mainly situated in the Muzaffarnagar District, hereinafter called the settlor, executed deed of wakf, hereinafter called the wakf or trust, by which he dedicated virtually his entire estate for purposes of national education and for founding a school to impart such education to be named after him as Behari Lal National School, Muzaffarnagar. Almost twelve years later on 12th January 1934, he executed another deed of declaration called by him Ailan-nama by which he cancelled the previous trust made by him. And having done so, on 18th May 1934, he raised an action in the Court of the first subordinate Judge of Saharanpur for a declarationthat the instrument of trust dated 16th July 1922, is null and void and unenforceable in law and that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute.2. The defendants to this suit were the surviving trustees nominated under the trust, two other persons who questioned the ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Gomti Kunwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All221
Braund, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a Suit No. 127 of 1933, from the Court of the first additional subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. In order to appreciate the point which is not an altogether easy one it will be necessary to consider the proceedings a little closely. Mt. Gomti as plaintiff brought the suit against some 33 defendants divided into two groups, the first group composed of defendants 1 to 22 and the other group composed of defendants 23 to 83. It is not very material to notice exactly what her cause of action was. It is sufficient to say that she sought a decree for a substantial sum of money on account of arrears of maintenance and for an order that she was entitled to the benefit of certain yearly payments in cash and in kind. But it is important to notice that by para. 10 of her plaint she valued her relief at the sum of Rs. 17,000.2. Mt. Gomti brought her suit in forma pauperis, and in due course it was duly admitted under Order 33 of Schedule 1, Civil P.C. The...
Tag this Judgment!inder Bahadur Singh Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All209
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. The applicant instituted a suit for the avoidance of a number of alienations alleged to have been made over a period of 14 years by one Sitla Baksh Singh, the karta of the joint Hindu family of which the applicant is a member. It was alleged in the plaint that these transactions were either without consideration or for insufficient consideration and that they were bad for want of legal necessity and also on the ground of immorality of purpose. There were 62 defendants to the suit, and one of the pleas taken in defence was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. The learned Munsif says:The result of this is that in reality the suit is not a single suit, but is a collection of a very large number of suits against a different set of defendants in each case and based on a different cause of action. To try all these suits together would be a most complicated and involved business, and as suc...
Tag this Judgment!Rati Ram Vs. Niader Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All215
ORDERBraund, J.1. This is an application in revision arising out of a second Appeal No. 610 of 1938, in which I made an order on 10th April 1940. The facts are very simple. It seems that a decree was obtained against the applicant by the opposite party for arrears of rent. On 23rd July 1937 a notice, purporting to be a notice under Section 80, Sub-section (2), Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, was served upon the applicant. The Act requires that notice to be a 15 days' notice. The Assistant Collector, however, on 7th August 1937, treating the matter as if there had been a default in complying with the notice, made an ejectment order against the applicant. It must be admitted that technically that order was irregular. The fifteen days had not expired at 4 P.M. on 7th August when the Assistant Collector made his order. On that ground in January 1938 the applicant went before the Additional District Judge of Meerut in appeal to complain of the ejectment order.2. The Additional District Judge appear...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bibi Ram Piarai Vs. Daya Shanker
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All193
ORDERCollister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, from a decree dismissing her suit. The suit was for recovery of a sum of money on a bond dated 4th July 1934 which had been executed by the opposite party in favour of the applicant. The applicant had obtained a decree for arrears of rent against the opposite party, which the latter was apparently unable to pay; and by agreement between the parties a bond was executed under the terms of which the opposite party agreed to pay the decretal amount within four years in eight instalments. Pour of these instalments were duly paid, but the applicant was compelled to institute a suit for recovery of the remaining four instalments. The suit had been dismissed by the Court below. The view of the learned Judge is that by the subsequent passing of Acts 4 of 1937 and 18 of 1939 the consideration for the bond has failed, the intention of the Legislature being that all rents prior to rabi 1344 should be remi...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Radhey Lal Vs. Niranjan Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All211
Bajpai, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and has been filed by one Radhey Lal. He had applied to us praying that one Niranjan Nath should be dealt with and punished according to law for contempt of the insolvency Court of Agra. On 2nd October 1940 See : AIR1941All95 we decided the matter and held that Niranjan Nath was not guilty of any contempt and we refused to punish Niranjan Nath. Radhey Lal has filed the present application, and the submission is that the case fulfills the requirements of Section 109(c), Civil P.C. In Kapildeva Malaviya v. Chief Justice and Judges of High Court, Allahabad : AIR1935All811 , a Bench of this Court held that proceedings for contempt of the High Court are in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and are of a criminal nature. Several authorities of various Courts were reviewed in that ease and the consensus of opinion was that the sentences passed in such matters amounted in effect to a general c...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Mohtashim and anr. Vs. Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All277
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by Sayid Mohammad Mohtashim and Sayid Mohammad Mohtarim who were defendants in suit No. 48 of 1936. The suit was brought by Lala Joti Prasad for the recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of a promissory note executed by the two defendants on 1st December 933. There was another suit No. 488 of 1934 filed by Sayid Mohammad Mohtashim and Sayid Mohammad Mohtarim against Lala Joti Prasad under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act. The Court below disposed of the two suits by a single judgment. In the suit brought by the debtors under Section 33, the Court below came to the conclusion that a certain sum of money was due by the debtors to the creditor and a declaratory decree under the provisions of Section 33(2) was given to the debtors. In the suit filed by Lala Joti Prasad the Court below came to the conclusion that the identical sum of money found due in the other case was payable to Lala Joti Prasad from the debtors. In the suit of the creditor ...
Tag this Judgment!Chheda Lal JaIn Vs. Officer, Commanding Station Meerut Cantonment
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All207
Bajpai, J.1. The learned District Judge of Meerut had before him a reference under Section 19 read with Section 15, Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act (vi of 1923) relating to the rent of bungalow No. 17, R.A. Lines, Meerut. He dismissed the reference on 30th May 1940. Chheda Lal Jain, the person aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, has filed the present first appeal from order against the decision of the Court below. It is conceded that the appeal has been filed more than thirty days after the decision of the learned District; Judge and is prima facie barred by time by reason of the provisions of Section 29, Sub-section (2) of the Act which say that no appeal under this section shall be admitted unless it is made within thirty days from the date of the decision against which it is preferred.2. We have before us the appeal itself and an application under Section 5, Limitation Act. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that Section 5, Limitation Act, is not app...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Babu Lal Vs. Babu Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941All194
Bajpai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce two simple mortgages dated 6th May 1929 and 27th June 1929 executed, by two Hindu brothers, Babu Lal and Kashi Prasad in favour of Seth Ram Chandra for Rs. 7000 and for Rs. 600 respectively. The mortgagee Seth Ram Chandra being dead, his son Pearey Lal instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,662 on the basis of the said two mortgages, after making adjustments of certain payments made by the mortgagors. To this suit he made originally his mortgagors as the defendants; but later on four minors, sons of the mortgagors, applied to be made and were made defendants and the main contest in the suit had been between the mortgagee and the sons of the mortgagors. The property mortgaged under the mortgages were 12 shops and houses in the city of Banda and these were ancestral properties of the mortgagors. The purpose for which the loan was raised was Rs. 1827 for payment of an antecedent debt and the rest of the loan 'for purchasing grain ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »