Allahabad Court August 1943 Judgments
Mahmud HusaIn Khan Vs. Radha Kishun
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All15
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit which was instituted on 28rd December 1939, by Radha Kishun for arrears of rent. It is common ground that on that date, namely 23rd December 1939, the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, was in force. The suit was filed in the Court of an Assistant Collector of. the second class and therein the defendant set up a proprietary title in himself on the basis of an award decree of 1884 which was held to be binding between the parties on 11th November 1937 in Suit No. 13 of 1936. A request was made that an issue regarding the question of proprietary title be sent to the civil Court if the learned Assistant Collector was not satisfied with the decision of the civil Court in Suit No. 13 of 1936. The plaintiff filed a copy of the judgment of the Munsif dated 27th October 1934 and contended that the matter had been decided in favour of the plaintiff in that litigation. The learned Assistant Collector on 11th November 1937, came to th...
Tag this Judgment!L. Murari Lal Vs. Governor-general in Council Through Military Estate ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All13
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree dated 12th September 1910, of the District Judge of Meerut by which he affirmed a judgment and decree dated 13th March 1940, of the Munsif of Meerut in a suit for recovery of rent and compensation. The plaintiff Murari Lal is the proprietor of a firm called Kalka Das and Sons at Meerut and he or the firm owned at one time three bungalows in Meerut Cantonment Nos.156, 228 and 230. The site of these bungalows is admittedly the property of the Government. Many years ago the site was leased out to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff for constructing these bungalows and this was done under the General Order of the Governor-General in Council dated 12th g September 1836, which is generally known as G.O. No. 179 of 1836. Admittedly the bungalows were constructed and were held on what is generally known as the Cantonment tenure. Sometime ago these three bungalows were given on rent by the plaintiff to the Officer Commanding th...
Tag this Judgment!Sheikh Mohammad Zia Vs. United Provinces
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All345
Collister, J.1. This is a suit against the United Provinces by a land-holder of the district of Allahabad, by name Sheikh Mohammad Zia. He challenges the validity of 12 specific sections of the U. P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939) and he also challenges the validity of the U. P. Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remissions) Act--Act 18 of 1939. The plaint recites the history of the legislation for consolidating and amending the law relating to agricultural tenancies from 20th April 1988, the date of the introduction of the bill in the Legislative Assembly, to 1st January 1940, the date when the Act came into force. It is alleged that when leave was sought to introduce the bill, certain members of the Legislative Assembly objected that, as some of the provisions were of an expropriatory character against the land-holders, the previous sanction of the Governor for its introduction was necessary under Section 299(3), Government of India Act; and, thereafter, the matter was referred to the Governor, who a...
Tag this Judgment!Kapildeo Ahir Vs. Sarat Kurmi and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-24-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All378
Verma, J.1. The order of the Court be-low cannot be sustained. The appeal is by a plaintiff whose suit for possession over two occupancy plots had been decreed by the trial Court. No objection as to jurisdiction had been raised by the defendant in the trial Court, no allegations had been made by the defendant which could be relevant to such an objection, there was, for obvious reasons, no issue on the point and no facts were found which could have any bearing on such a plea. The defendant appealed to the lower appellate Court and there, for the first time, raised the plea that the suit was not cognizable by the civil Court. The lower appellate Court has accepted that plea and has ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.2. The essence of the pleadings was this. The plaintiff alleged that he was the sole occupancy tenant of the plots in question, that his mother -- defendant 2 in the suit -- had, during his minority, executed a deed of usuf...
Tag this Judgment!Mizaji Lal Vs. Babu Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1944All32
Hamilton, J.1. Appeal No. 199 of 1941 is an appeal by Babu Ram defendant and Appeal No. 41 of 1941 is by Mizaji Lal plaintiff against a decision of the Civil Judge of Mainpuri. Mizaji Lal, the plaintiff, alleged that he was the adopted son of Phulzari Lal and, therefore, entitled to various securities as forming part of the estate of Phulzari Lal. He had applied on 7th July 1933 to the Public Debt Office that securities in the name of Phulzari Lal be transferred to his name and interest be paid to him. The defendant Babu Lal had, however, on 5th October 1933, asked the Public Debt Office not to transfer those securities in the name of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff it was because of this action of the defendant that the plaintiff was not allowed to draw the interest on those securities. The plaintiff alleged that there was another action of the defendant which prevented him from obtaining interest on certain securities which had not matured and the value of certain other ...
Tag this Judgment!Munni Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All344
Plowden, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah, dated 8th April 1943. The prosecution case is that on 28th November 1942, Munni Lal and his nephew, Megh Nath, went to the Khalyan of Hajju and Jwali who are indebted to them and demanded their money. The Chamars said that they were unable to pay. The accused chased them inside the courtyard and Megh Nath aimed a lathi blow at Hajju and knocked him down. Munni Lal sat on his chest and began to strangle him and would not desist in spite of the entreaties of his relations. Suddenly Hajju died. Jwali went to the Thana and made a report at 4 P.M. Megh Nath denies his presence but Munni Lal admits that he went to the Chamars' house and demanded money, whereupon he and Hajju grappled with one another and Hajju fell down and he fell on top of him. In other words, Munni Lal practically admits that he was responsible for Hajju's death. According to the doctor, Hajju's death was caused by shock and inte...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Radha Swami Sat Sang.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-13-1943
Reported in: [1945]13ITR520(All)
This is an appeal against a judgment and decree dated August 12, 1938, of the Additional Civil Judge of Agra, in a suit for declaration of title to certain movable and immovable property. The plaintiff, hereafter called the Sabha, is the administrative council of one section of the followers of Radha Swami faith, hereafter called the Dayal Bagh Satsangis and it has been registered as a charitable society under the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1860). For many years the president of the Sabha and the spiritual head of the Dayal Bagh Satsangis was a person of great ability whose real name was Sir Anand Swarup but who was called by his followers and was popularly known as Sahebji Maharaj. Under his guidance and as a result of contribution made by his followers a religious colony was established in the suburbs of the city of Agra which is popularly known as Dayal Bagh, and there came into existence in its colony for the benefit of Satsangis, model houses, educational institutions, mod...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Vs. Shri Ram Lakshman Janki Through Mahant Ganga Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All352
Collister, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal tinder the Letters Patent from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court. Plaintiff respondent 1 is an idol and plaintiff respondents, by name Ganga Prasad, claims to be the shebait. The suit was for a declaration that respondent 2 is the shebait and manager of the temple and its property, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant appellant from realising rent and from executing decrees for arrears of rent with respect to certain plots belonging to the idol. It was alleged that respondent 2 was the founder of the endowment and that seven years before the suit he appointed the appellant as manager of the property, but the latter did not perform his duties properly and so the respondent dismissed him from that office by a notice dated 15th August 1935. The defence was that it was the appellant himself who had constructed the temple, that he was the shebait and that in that capacity he had obtained the decrees for arrears of re...
Tag this Judgment!B. Madho Prasad and ors. Vs. B. Gauri Shanker Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All358
Dar, J.1. These are two applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a judgment and decree of this Court, dated 29th September 1942, by which a judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge of Meerut, dated 12th December 1934, in a suit for partition of property was affirmed excepting in the matter of costs. The suit out of which these applications for leave have arisen was instituted on 18th January 1925, for partition of certain alleged joint family property of considerable value'. The parties to the litigation were near relations. On 4th March 1926, a consent decree was passed in the suit which was partly preliminary and partly final. In pursuance of the preliminary decree a commissioner was appointed to partition the property, who submitted his report on 5th September 1932. Objections were taken to this report both by the plaintiffs and by the defendants. On 12th December 1934, the Additional District Judge of Meerut after disposing of these objections ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalji Saheb Through Bankey Behari Lal Vs. Munshi Lal Babu and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943All340
Collister, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of a learned Judge of this Court. The suit was for possession of a house and for recovery of Rs. 120 as damages for the demolition of a wall, for the removal of materials and for use and occupation. The plaintiff's case was based upon a sale deed dated 28th April 1931 under which he purchased this property from Mohan Lal Dip Chand, and at a later date he also added a plea of title based on adverse possession. It was alleged in the plaint that in the middle of October 1935 the defendants wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff. It is said that the house was in a state of dilapidation and the plaintiff had placed a lock upon it and this lock was broken by the defendants. The defendants denied the plaintiff's ownership of the house. They claimed to represent a man named Bhuteshwar, who they say was the original owner of the house; but they do not disclose in the written statement how or in what manner they...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »