Allahabad Court November 1942 Judgments
Nawabzada Mohammad Liaqat Ali Khan Vs. Ajudhia Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All212
Hamilton, J.1. This is an appeal by the sole plaintiff Nawabzada Muhammad Liaqat Ali Khan whose suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar. The suit was originally filed against Ajudhia Prasad as principal defendant and Murari Lal, Babu Ram and Sita Ram as his mortgagees. The plaint was subsequently amended and three defendants were added, Nawabzada Muhammad Sadaqat Ali Khan, Lala Attar Sen and Jai Prakash, the last being the son of defendant Ajudhia Prasad. It was alleged in the plaint that defendant Ajudhia Prasad, his father, his grandfather Fakir Chand and his great grandfather had been in the service of the estate of the plaintiff of his brothers and their ancestors, in which the land in suit was situate and, in collusion with other servants of the estate, defendant 1 and his ancestors, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, of his brothers and of his ancestors, had entered into possession of the land in suit as tenant during the year 1898, having themselve...
Tag this Judgment!Liyaqat HusaIn Vs. Dr. Lakshmi Datt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All201
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit in which the following relief was prayed for by the plaintiff:It be declared that the property given below is not liable to sale in execution of decree No. 264 of 1930 in the Court of the Munsif of Fathebabad, Execution Case No. 696 of 1932--Hem Raj v. Ram Prasad,--and the auction gale, dated 21st July 1936 which was confirmed on 21st August 1936 is null and void and without jurisdiction and ineffectual against the plaintiff.2. The facts that led to the institution of the suit are not in controversy and are as follows. The property in dispute belonged to one Ram Prasad. One Hem Raj had a simple money decree against Ram Prasad and, in execution of that decree, Hem Raj attached the property in dispute in or about the year 1931. During the continuance of the attachment Ram Prasad sold the property in dispute to Lakshmi Datt, plaintiff. After the private sale in favour of Lakshmi Datt, the property in dispute was put to...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Charan Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All238
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Allahabad in the course of proceedings for the acquisition of land by the Government. The property in dispute is a house No. 18 (formerly 12) Bank Road in Allahabad with the land appurtenant to it. The area of the site is 6.34 acres. The appellant, Babu Radha Charan, bought the property in the year 1920 for a sum of Rs. 22,000. The property was acquired by the Government for the Allahabad University in the year 1930. The amount of compensation was fixed on behalf of the Collector by his Land Acquisition Officer at a sum of Rs. 37,950 in the year 1933. The Land Acquisition Officer decided that the gross rental of the premises could not be more than Rs. 150 a month and he calculated the value of the property on the basis of sixteen and two-thirds years' purchases. On this basis the amount was Bs. 30,000. He then allowed Rs. 2400 for a fruit orchard on the basis of eight years' purchase on an annual rental of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dan Bahadur Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-13-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All93
ORDERYorke, J.1. The first of these two matters is an application in revision by Dan Bahadur Singh against an order of the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur declining to interfere with the order of a first class Magistrate directing that one Hazari, a confessing accused, should be kept in police custody beyond the maximum period of 15 days prescribed by Section 167, Criminal P. C. I do not propose to deal with this application because since it was made the investigation of that case has been finished and the accused have been committed for trial to the Court of Session. The accused Hazari has been tendered a pardon under the provisions of Section 337, Criminal P.C., and he is now detained in custody not under the order to which the application in Revision No. 445 of 1942 relates but under an order of the Magistrate made under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 387. It is conceded that, in these circumstances, the question which arose in Revision No. 445 of 1942 no longer arises ...
Tag this Judgment!Salig Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All26
ORDER1. This is (in application in revision by one Salig Ram who, along with 30 other persons was tried by a Special Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 395, Penal Code. The offence that formed the subject of charge against the applicant was alleged to have boon committed on 14th August 1942. The trial was by a Special Magistrate in pursuance of the provisions of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 2 of 1942. The learned Magistrate acquitted one of the accused and convicted the remaining 30 accused. He sentenced Salig Ram to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default of payment of fine he ordered Salig Ram to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Salig Ram appealed to the Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal holding that no appeal lay to him in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Ordinance. Salig Ram then filed the present application in revision in this Court. The decision of the Magistrate has been assailed by Mr. Pyare Lal Banerji ...
Tag this Judgment!Pooran Chand and anr. Vs. Radha Raman and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All197
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. The suit, as it ultimately stood after certain amendments of the plaint made at the request of the plaintiffs, asked for the following relief:The summary order, dated 18th March 1936, passed in miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1936, by the Court of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore--Har Gobind and others versus Radha Raman and others--so far as it relates to the plaintiffs may be set aside.2. The following pedigree will be helpful:JAGANNATH = MT. RAM PIARI, D-3___________|______________________________| | |Raja Ram=Mt. Shiam Radha Raman, D-1 Tulsi Ram=Mt. Brij RaniDei, wife, D-2 _____________________________|____ | | Puran Chand, P-1 Kapur Chand, P-2.3. Jagannath died in 1906, Tulsi Ram in 1916 and Raja Ram in 1933. The family was governed by the Mitakshara. According to the plaint, which was filed on 18th April 1936, plaintiff 1, Puran Chand, was 'about 24 years' old and plaintiff 2, Kapur Chand was 'about 21 years' old at the t...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Through Agent, G.i.P. Rly. and anr. Vs. Nawal Kisho ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All158
ORDERVerma, J.1. The decision of the Court below is manifestly wrong and this application in revision must be allowed. The suit which has given rise to this application was brought by the opposite party in the Court of Small Causes at Agra against two Railway administrations, namely, the G.I.P. Rly. and the Bombay Port Trust Railway. The former being a State railway, the 'Secretary of State for India' was named as defendant 1 and he was sued 'through the Agent, G.I.P. Rly., Bombay.' The claim was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 200. This sum was made up of Rs. 167-4-0 which, the plaintiff alleged, had been wrongfully realised from him on a consignment which he had booked from Bombay (Store Depot) to Agra (Belanganj), Rupees 27-12-0 on account of 'loss of interest' and Rs. 5 'cost of notices.' The Court below decreed the suit against defendant 1, the Secretary of State for India, and dismissed it against defendant 2, the Bombay Port Trust Railway. This application for revision is on be...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ram Kali and anr. Vs. Administrator-general
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All356
Allsop, J.1. This application for the issue of letters of administration with the copy of a will annexed was made by Mt. Nanhi and Devi Prasad. The will was alleged to have been executed by B. Kunj Behari Lal, the father of Mt. Nanhi and the grand-father of Devi Prasad. There was an objection by B. Kunj Behari Lal's second wife and her daughter. The application was that letters of administration should be issued to the Administrator-General. The question arose whether a third party could make an application of that kind and ultimately the Administrator-General was substituted with the consent of the Court for the original applicants. The question now is whether letters of administration should be issued to the Administrator-General. Two issues were framed on the objections of the other party, namely, (i) Was the will of 6th December 1932, validly executed by Kunj Behari Lal? and (2) Is the Administrator. General legally entitled to obtain letters of administration as claimed by him on ...
Tag this Judgment!Bibi Rehana Khatun Vs. Iqtidar UddIn Hasan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943All184
Hamilton, J.1. This is an appeal by Bibi Rehana Khatun whose suit to recover Rupees 25,500 as prompt dower from the defendant Iqtidar Uddin Hasan has been dismissed by the Civil Judge of Budaun. The plaintiff claims Rs. 25,500 as being a half of Rs. 51,000 fixed as dower, there having been no sum specified as prompt dower. The defendant alleges that there was no valid marriage as he entered into it under undue influence and similarly under undue influence the amount of Rs. 51,000 was fixed as dower, that there was a divorce by the Eela form in September 1933 so that this claim is time-barred, that the suit is not maintainable as there was no prior demand, that in any case the amount fixed as prompt dower should not exceed one fifth of Rs. 51,000 and finally that he, is entitled to pay only by instalments in view of the provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Civil Judge found in favour of the defendant on all these, points and in addition he found against the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›