Allahabad Court October 1942 Judgments
Rup NaraIn Vs. Tirbeni Sahai Alias Mangoo Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All172
Yorke, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal in a suit for recovery of money on foot of a simple instalment bond. The defendant Chaube Rup Narain had on 6th September 1933 executed an instalment bond for RS. 5500 in favour of the plaintiff Babu Tirbeni Sahai alias Mangoo Lal son of Har Prasad Kayastha of Sarai Miran in the Farrukhabad district in lieu of the amount due to the creditor on a promissory note dated 25th September 1927, limitation in respect of which promissory note had been extended by a payment of Rs. 100 in cash on 22nd September 1930. The promissory note of 1927 had itself been executed in lieu of a promissory note dated 2nd October 1924. Under the provisions of the bond in suit the borrower, the present defendant, was to pay the amount of the loan in annual instalments falling due on Jeth Puranmashi of Sambat 1991 to 1997. The first five dates would be 27th June 1934, 16th June 1935, 5th June 1936, 23rd June 1937 and 12th June 1938. When limitation was about to expire in r...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Thakur Bejai Ragho Niwasji Vs. Tej NaraIn Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All99
Mathur, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff directed against the decree dated 7th March 1941 passed by the civil Judge of Basti who confirmed a decree of the Munsif of the same place. It appears that there is a village known as Gaighat in the district of Basti and there is a bazaar attached to that village. The present dispute relates to that bazaar alone. The plaintiff-appellant raised an action for a declaration that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the said bazaar and were entitled to realise the dues and to manage the bazaar. The defendants first set who are described as superior proprietors and were entitled to receive Rs. 70 annually as malikana allowance resisted the claim and pleaded that they have always been in possession of the bazaar and were realizing the rent and managing the same through the defendants second set who were the agents. A further plea was taken by the defendants, first set, that the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. The suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Surjoo Bai Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All112
Hamilton, J.1. This is a second appeal by Srimati Sarju Bai, plaintiff, who has filed a suit against the Municipal Board of Jhansi to restrain the board from demolishing some tapras which stand on land of the plaintiff. No one has been able to explain to me exactly what tapras are but they are a construction of an unsubstantial and possibly of a temporary nature erected by persons who sell goods of no great value. The tapras in suit are on a piece of land 332/677 in Jhansi town. The municipal board had been in occupation of this land and the plaintiff brought a suit for possession which was finally decided in her favour in the High Court in October 1936. Prom the judgment of this Court in that suit, it appears that the municipality had been in possession of part of this land from the year 1914 and of part of this land from about the year 1916 and it used to let it in small parcels by auction. It used to take rent from these tenants but this rent was rent for the occupation of the land,...
Tag this Judgment!Patroo Lal Vs. Mt. Parbhawati Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All214
Hamilton, J.1. This is an appeal by the sole plaintiff Patru Lal whose suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge of Azamgarh. The plaintiff and pro forma defendant 5, Madho Prasad, are the sons of Moti Lal, defendant 3 and of Mt. Bhagwanta Kuer, defendant 4. The suit was brought for possession of a half share in certain houses and shops by cancellation of a sale dated 21st June 1921, of a sale deed dated 17th November 1925 and of an auction sale dated 9th February 1928.2. Moti Lal, defendant, in 1913 brought a suit for separation of himself and his son, Madho Prasad, from Sarju Prasad, father of Moti Lal, and Hira Lal, son of Sarju Prasad and brother of Moti Lal. At that time the present plaintiff was not born. Sarju Prasad died and the original family property went as the result of partition and inheritance half to Hira Lal and half to Moti Lal and the latter's sons. Moti Lal began to borrow money. One of these transactions led to a decree being obtained by one Tribeni Misir and an auctio...
Tag this Judgment!Zafar HusaIn Vs. Manzoor Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All209
ORDERPlowden, J.1. This is a revision under Section 276, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, against the order of the District Judge of Cawnpore dated 16th July 1941 which held that the plaintiff was a cosharer although not a co-owner of certain property and was, therefore, entitled to bring his suit under Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 in the revenue Court. The question for decision was whether the plaintiff should file his suit in the revenue or in the civil Court. The defendant who is lambardar argued that he is a mutwalli and the sole owner of the property and the plaintiff is merely entitled to maintenance. It is difficult to make a distinction between profits in the ordinary sense of the word and maintenance from profits of an estate. Under Section 266, U.P. Tenancy Act, the appeal in this case would lie to the District Judge unless the amount of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 5000 in which case it would lie to the High Court. Under. Section 269 an appeal would lie to the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Dolly Edelwaize D'Silva Vs. Mrs. MaelakIn and Ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All95
Iqbal Ahmad, C. J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the District Judge of Gorakhpur rejecting an application filed by the appellant for the grant of a succession certificate with respect to some post office cash certificates that were held by one Joseph Anderson deceased. The appellant alleged in her application that Joseph Anderson had made a gift 'in contemplation of death' in respect of the cash certificates in her (appellant's) favour. The application was opposed by the respondents inter alia on the ground that, even if a gift as alleged by the appellant was made in her favour by Joseph Anderson, a succession certificate could not be granted inasmuch as the cash certificates did not pass to the appellant 'by succession'. The learned Judge accepted this contention of the respondents and rejected the application filed by appellant. He, however, did not decide the question whether a gift 'in contemplation of death' as alleged by the appellant was made in her favour...
Tag this Judgment!Narotam Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All97
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application in revision against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of 'Allahabad at Mirzapur partly allowing the appeal of one Narotam Dass who was convicted by the Munsif of Mirzapur on 5th January 1942 of an offence under Section 228, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 with 20 days' simple imprisonment in default. The learned Sessions Judge reduced the fine to Rs. 50 but otherwise dismissed the appeal. The facts of this case are quite simple. The applicant was a defendant in a regular suit before the Munsif of Mirzapur. In his defence he had disputed the jurisdiction of the Court. The case came up on 3rd October 1941 when the Munsif postponed the hearing of argument on this issue to 10th October. On that date, the Court decided the issue against the defendant holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. The applicant, Narotam Dass, took no steps of any kind for a period of more than two months. On 16th December 1941 he made ...
Tag this Judgment!NasiruddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All47
ORDERYorke, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Nasir Uddin who was convicted by a first class Magistrate of Agra of an offence under Section 307(b), U. P. Municipalities Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 with seven days' simple imprisonment in default. The additional District Magistrate of Agra reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 15 with seven days' simple imprisonment. The facts of this matter, which at the outset required some thrashing out, are now fairly clear. On 21st December 1939, the applicant, Nasir Uddin, sent to the Municipal Board of Agra an application, under Section 178 of the Act, giving notice to the Board of his intention to erect a new building. It was the duty of the Board in the light of Section 180 of the Act to pass orders on this application within a month and it was competent for the applicant, on the Board neglecting or omitting for one month after the receipt of a notice under Section 178 to make and deliver to the applicant an order, by...
Tag this Judgment!Debi Prasad Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All63
Dar J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 12th September 1939 of the Civil Judge of Mirzapur by which he partly varied a judgment and decree of the Munsif of Mirzapur dated 5th November 1938, in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a sarkhat. The plaintiff Debi Prasad is the proprietor of a firm of money-lenders called Debi Prasad Bhagwan Dass at Mirzapur. The defendants Bhagwati Prasad and Buddhu Lal who are two own brothers also own a firm at Mirzapur called the firm Bhagwati Prasad Buddhu Lal. On 20th January 1930, defendant 1 Bhagwati Prasad borrowed a sum of Rs. 1200 from Bam Dass, the father of the plaintiff, and executed a promissory note in his favour bearing interest at 6 percent. per annum. Some time after the execution of this promissory note Ram Dass died, and the plaintiff Debi Prasad succeeded to the family money-lending business. On 31st December 1935, the account between the plaintiff and defendant 1 with regard to the promissory note of 193...
Tag this Judgment!Kadher Mal Vs. Kunwar Sheo Narain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All90
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff Kunwar Sheo Narain brought a suit against the defendant Kadhar Mal, for the recovery of Rs. 2400 together with costs and pendente lite and future interest (alleging?) that he had advanced to the defendant on 15th June 1935, a sum of Rs. 1800 and the defendant had executed a promissory note promising to pay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem. The defendant pleaded that he did not borrow any money from the plaintiff, nor had he any necessity to borrow money and that he did not execute any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the defendant was born on 18th February 1919, and he was, therefore, a minor on 15th June 1935. In 1935 the defendant used to pay Government revenue of about Rs. 3000 and an income-tax of Rs. 500. But the plaintiff was given to drinking and gambling and the defendant was induced by certain persons to go to the place of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »