Allahabad Court November 1943 Judgments
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Ramesh Chandra Adopted Son of B. Sheo Pr ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All84
Mulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B of the amended Court-fees Act (7 of 1870). It arises out of Suit No. 42 of 1941 filed by the opposite party, Ramesh Chandra in the Court of the Civil Judge at Aligarh against his adoptive mother, Smt. Rama Devi, the widow o one B. Sheo Prasad. Ramesh Chandra alleged, in his plaint, that he was the validly adopted son of Babu Sheo Prasad and had inherited certain properties in that capacity on his father's death on 9th January 1924. These properties were set out in Schedule A attached to the plaint. Certain other properties were set out in Schedules B and C to the plaint. With regard to the former, the plaintiff's case was that they had been purchased by the defendant out of the funds belonging to the plaintiff as the adopted son of B. Sheo Prasad but mutation in respect of those properties had been effected jointly in the names of the plaintiff and the defendant. With regard to the latter, ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Pratap Singh Vs. Jagat Pratap Kunwar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All97
Verma, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit by a wife against her husband in which the main relief claimed was a decree for maintenance. The Court below has decreed the suit in part, and the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has submitted to the decree.2. The plaintiff-respondent, Rani Jagat Pra. tap Kunwar, was a German girl, Mellita Franck by name, and a Roman Catholic Christian by religion, before her marriage with the defendant. She came out to India in December 1935 and was employed at a hotel, called Hakman's Hotel, at Mussoorie. There is nothing in the pleadings or in the evidence to show what her occupation was. The learned Judge below, however, states in his judgment that she was an 'artist.' It is possible that this observation of the learned Judge is based on some statement made by the counsel for the parties before him in the course of the trial. But it is not at all clear what sort of an 'artist' she was. She was getting a salary of Rs. 1000 per month and was allo...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Ahmad Vs. Ibadat Ullah Khan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All60
Mulla, J.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for damages. The plaintiff alleged that the District Board of Bareilly had given him a lease of the right to collect toll at a public ferry called Haru Nagla for the period commencing in October 1939 and ending in September 1940. There was a stipulation in the lease that no other ferry would be set up within two miles of the ferry of which a lease had been given to the plaintiff. The defendants-respondents who are zamindars of a village called Dhoria which lies about a mile away from the ferry in question, set up a rival ferry on their own land and this act on their part was wrongful and it caused damage to the plaintiff inasmuch as the income which he would have otherwise obtained at the ferry in question was diverted to the ferry set up by the defendants-respondents. Upon these allegations the plaintiff claimed a certain amount as damages. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif, Haveli, Bareilly. An objection was...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Vs. Gokul and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All61
Mathur, J.1. This is a defendant's second appeal against a judgment of the Civil Judge of Benares, dated 31st July 1942 by which he reversed a judgment of the Munsif of Haveli, Benares, dated 1st April 1938. The suit as brought by the plaintiffs-respondents was for a declaration that the house detailed in the plaint was not liable to sale in execution of Suit No. 204 of 1936, and the sale did not bind them as they were owners of the same. The defence was of course the denial of the plaintiffs' title. A number of legal pleas were also taken, namely, that the suit was barred by limitation, it was barred by Section 42, Specific Relief Act, and also by Section 41, T.P. Act. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit but on appeal the suit has been decreed. The points taken before me by learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant are : (1) that the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the plaintiffs were able to prove their pedigree was not correct, (2) that according to the mortgage referred...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Babu Ram and ors. Vs. Aflatoon and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All59
Mathur, J.1. This is a decree-holders' second appeal and it raises a very simple question of law. The decree-holder obtained a preliminary decree for sale under Order 34, Rule 4 on 11th January 1937. Then the Act, 10 of 1937, namely, Temporary Postponement of Execution of Decrees Act came into force and remained in force till 31st December 1940. On 1st January 1940, an application under Order 34, Rule 5 for preparation of the final decree was presented and it was urged that the time was saved by Section 5 of the said Act. Both the lower Courts have repelled this plea. It is argued before me as it was argued before the lower Courts that the words in Section 3 of the said Act 'All proceedings in execution of any decree' include an application for preparation of final decree as it in a way leads to the execution of the decree. I cannot accept this argument as the proceedings in execution only start when there is an executable decree and an application for execution is made. I therefore ag...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pratap and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All167
Allsop, J.1. The two appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Sections 436 and 395, Penal Code, for the offences of mischief by fire and dacoity. The allegation is that they with five or six others went to a railway station during the disturbances in August 1942 and burnt some furniture, removed something over Rs. 30 from the safe and damaged instruments and other articles. There can be no doubt that this occurrence took place. One question is whether the appellants were concerned in it. It happened that there were two station masters at the station at the time. Their evidence is that the appellants came into the office and they were able to identify them at an identification proceeding in the jail and afterwards in Court. They assigned definite acts to the two appellants. There is also evidence which there is no reason to disbelieve that the appellants were arrested immediately afterwards at or near the station. The appellants say that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sarfaraz Ali Khan Vs. Ahmad Kamil Mustafa Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All104
Verma, J.1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal must succeed. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the respondent, Ahmad Kamil Mustafa Khan, and asked for the following relief:It may be declared that the defendant shall have no right after the death of his mother, Bismillah Begum, or at any other time to get profits of the property made a wakf of by Mohammad Amir Mustafa Khan deceased, of which the plaintiff is a mutwalli, nor shall the defendant have any sort of right to realise any amount of profit of Rs. 200 by virtue of the agreement aforesaid as against the plaintiff mutwalli.The Court below has decreed the suit.2. There are certain facts which are not in controversy. There was a gentleman of the name of Amir Mustafa Khan--(we shall for the sake of brevity refer to him in this judgment as Amir)--who resided at Aligarh and owned considerable landed property in the Districts of Aligarh and Eta...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Veni Madho Prasad Singh Vs. Mirzapur Electric Supply Co., Ltd. an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All123
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of zar-i-chaharum. The plaintiff-appellant is the Raja of Kantit. Defendant 1 is the Mirzapur Electric Supply Co., and defendants second set are Gilbert P. Mackenzie and Robert Ross - who apparently represent a firm of accountants and auditors. On 5th August 1930 the defendants second set, as trustees of the Bengal Stone Co., Ltd., sold certain properties to defendant 1 for Rs. 55,000; and included in the properties so conveyed were a number I of buildings in Mirzapur kalan and in Mirzapur khurd. The value of the various properties was not separately specified in the sale deed, but the plaintiff-appellant estimated the value of the buildings at Mirzapur kalan and Mirzapur khurd at Rupees 30,000 and he claimed Rs. 7500, being one-fourth of the aforesaid amount, as the zar-i-ehaharum due to him in respect thereto on the basis of a custom prevailing in this locality. When the suit went to Court, however, the p...
Tag this Judgment!Allah Dia and anr. Vs. Syed Akhtar Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All29
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree, dated 28th October 1941, of the civil Judge of Meerut by which he varied a judgment and decree, dated 12th March 1941, of the Second Additional Munsif of Meerut in a suit for recovery of rent. The plaintiff is the zamindar of village Poothri in Meerut district; and the two defendants, who are two Teli brothers, reside in that village and occupy a house in the village abadi. The plaintiff alleging that the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Re. 1-4-0 per annum for chowkidara which is the ground rent for the occupation of a site occupied by the defendants and this liability arises under a custom recorded in the wajib-ul-arz of the village as also under a contract made and subsisting between the plaintiff and the defendants claimed a sum of Rs. 3-12-0 as rent due to him for the years 1345 to 1347 Fasli. The Munsif of Meerut found that the demand of the plaintiff was in the nature of a cess and as it was not recorded in the curr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. BenjamIn Guy Horniman
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1945All1
Collister, J.1. On 10th May 1943 we issued notice to the editor, publisher and printer of a daily newspaper known as the 'Bombay Sentinel' in respect to a comment which appeared in its issue of 28th April 1943. The respondent is a gentleman named Mr. B.G. Horniman, and apparently he combines in himself the functions of editor, publisher and printer of the aforesaid paper. He failed to appear in response to two successive notices from this Court, and accordingly on 2nd September 1943 we issued a bailable warrant of arrest against him. The warrant was addressed to the Commissioner of Police at Bombay. The latter produced the respondent before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who released him on bail in terms of our order. The respondent then went in revision to the High Court at Bombay against the order which had been passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and in which the latter approved the respondent's surety and released the respondent on bail and directed him to appear before thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›