Allahabad Court March 1944 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Peare Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All168
ORDERIqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. This is an application in revision by three persons, Piarey Lal, Ganga Din and Bhaggo Lal against the appellate decision of the Sessions Judge of Pilibhit affirming their conviction by a Magistrate of the First Class under Rule 90(3), Defence of India Rules. Rule 90(2)(e) provides thatno person shall possess small coin to an amount in excess of his personal or business requirements for the time beingand Sub-rule (3) of that rule prescribes punishment for the contravention of sub-r. (-2)(e). The facts are not in controversy and are as follows : On 24th July 1943, the three applicants, along with certain other persons, were proceeding in a tonga from Bisalpur to Bilsanda bazar in Pilibhit district when they were overtaken by Muhammad Umar, the Station Officer of Bilsanda Police Station. All the three applicants were in possession of small coins and the charge against them was that the coins in their possession were in excess of their personal or business requirem...
Kanhaiya Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All252
Verma, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that no appeal lay to the Court below and that consequently this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal. The suit was one by the lambardar for ejectment of the appellant, along with certain other defendants, under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act (17 of 1939). The suit was filed in the revenue Court in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act and was triable by an Assistant Collector of the first class (vide Schedule 4, Group B, serial No. 18 in the Act of 1939). The Assistant Collector, who tried the suit, decreed it. Sub-section (2) of Section 265 of the Act lays down that an appeal from the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class in all suits included in Group B of Schedule 4 shall lie to the Commissioner. I am not overlooking the fact that Sub-section (3) of that section provides an appeal to the District Judge from the decree of an Assistant Col...
Babu Lal Vs. Mangat Rai
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All195
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 7728 from the defendant. It appears that the defendant executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of the plaintiffs on 5th June 1924 in order to secure an advance of Rs. 3000. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the basis of the mortgage and obtained preliminary and final decrees. The final decree was passed on 23rd May 1931 but it was subsequently modified on 18th January 1936 to enable the defendant to pay the amount due by way of instalments. The defendant's son, however, instituted a suit on 16th March 1936 in order to obtain a declaration that the property mortgaged could not be transferred by the defendant, Babu Lal, because it was ancestral family property and there was no legal necessity for the transfer. A decree was passed in favour of Babu Lal's son on 1st September 1936. The plaintiffs attempted to obtain redress against Babu Lal under the provisions of Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., bu...
Bankey Lal Vs. Puran Mal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All197
ORDERVerma, J.1. On 24th August 1938, one Ajodhya Prasad, deceased, and his son, Pooran Mai, who is the respondent before me, executed a bond in favour of Bankey Lal and Hira Lal, who are the plaintiffs-applicants in this revision, acknowlegding that a sum of Rs. 461 was due from them to Bankey Lal and Hira. Lal and promising to pay that sum without interest in the following six instalments:(1) End of Kartik Sambat 1995 = 29thNovember 1938. ... ... Rs. 77(2) End of Baisakb Sambat 1996 = 2ndMay 1939 ... ... Rs. 77(3) End of Kartik Sambat 1996 = 26thNovember 1939 ... ... Rs. 77(4) End of Baisakh Sambat 1997 = 21stMay 1940 ... ... Rs. 77(5) End of Kartik Sambat 1997 = 30thNovember 1940 ... ... Rs. 77(6) End of Baisak Sambat 1998 = 11thMay 1941 ... ... Rs. 76----------Rs. 461----------There was a stipulation in the deed in the following words : 'Dar surat wada khilafi kisi gist ke kul rupaya ek musht mae sood fi sadi ek rupaya mahawari he hisab se aj hi tarikh se indul-talab ada karenge.' ...
Mohd. Umar and ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All264
Yorke, J.1. This is a defendants' first appeal in a suit for declaration and damages. The plaintiffs came into Court describing, themselves as members of the Hindu community of the town of Deoband and claiming to represent the general body of Hindus resident in that town. They sue the defendants in a representative capacity as representing the Mahomedan community of Deoband. They put forward the allegations that in the town of Deoband there is a temple or thakurdwara of the deity Lord Krishna and they said that it was customary to celebrate the birthday of Lord Krishna, commonly known elsewhere as Janamashtami, in the town of Deoband. They said that the celebrations began from Bhadon Badi first and finished on the 11th and that on the 10th it was the custom to take out the idol in procession through the town on a golden chariot accompanied by music, akha-ras of athletes, elephants, horses, bullocks and so on and that this procession followed a specific route through the town from the t...
Shyam Lal Gomatwala Vs. Nand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All220
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned civil Judge of Bulandshahr by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suit claiming certain reliefs by way of declaration and injunction. The facts briefly appear to be these. There was at Dibai, in the district of Bulandshahr a ginning and pressing factory which was known as Sukhahand Shyam Lal Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory. This factory, according to the plaint, was owned by a large number of partners exceeding twenty in number. Its legality appears to be doubtful, but we are not concerned with that question and shall leave it at that. It, however, appears that a joint Hindu family partnership called Sukhnand Shyam Lal really owned it. It further appears that the firm Sukhnand Shyam Lal owed a large amount to a Bombay firm, Messrs. Kila Chand Dev Chand, Ltd. On 30th April 1933 an equitable mortgage was granted by the firm Sukhnand Shyam Lal in favour of the Bombay firm for a sum of Rs. 1,78,000 odd. On 18th...
Collector of Gorakhpur Vs. Sm. Rani Satya Bhama Kumari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All256
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu woman for a declaration fixing the amount of future maintenance and for payment of a certain sum as past maintenance. The defendant is the Court of Wards representing an estate under its management. The learned Judge allowed a sum of Rupees 4006-8-0 on account of past maintenance, but there was a clerical error because the amount claimed was Rs. 5082-8-0 and the learned Judge held that a sum of Rs. 976 should be deducted. On the deduction of Rs. 976 the balance is Rs. 4106-8-0. It has been argued by the appellant that the learned Judge was wrong in allowing past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 because that sum was excessive. The learned Judge of the Court below pointed out that the plaintiff was promised an allowance at the rate of Rs. 150 by one of the other widows of the family who was in possession. There were three widows and it was agreed that each should receive Rs. 150. The learned Judge has further pointed out that the...
Ahmad Ali Vs. Joti Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All188a
Allsop, J.1. We have before us four connected appeals, namely, First Appeals Nos. 95 and 124 of 1941 arising out of suit No. 120 of 1937 in the Court of the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun and First Appeals Nos. 96 and 125 of 1941 arising out of suit No. 389 of 1938 in the same Court. The parties were the same in the two suits. First Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 have been instituted by the defendants and First Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed damages in the two suits upon the ground that the defendants had cut down a number of trees in the forest of Guljwari, the property of the plaintiffs, and that they had been guilty of certain breaches of an agreement or lease which was evidenced by a document executed by the plaintiffs, Joti Prasad and Jugal Kishore, on 10th September 1935. In this document Joti Prasad and Jugal Kishore are described as the first party and the defendants, Shaikh Ahmad AH, Nur Ahmad Niyaz Ahmad and Benarsi Das are described as the second party....
Chhedi Lal Vs. Babu Nandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All204
Verma, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a. suit for redemption. A decree for redemption has been, passed in the appellant's favour but he objects to the amount which he has been ordered to pay. On 15th January 1906 a deed of usufructuary mortgage was executed' by two brothers, Sahdeo Singh and Bahadur Singh, in. favour of one Mt. Subhagi and it was stated in the deed that the amount advanced by the mortgagee to the mortgagors was Rs. 1200. The property mortgaged was described in the deed as a 'kachcha built tiled shop-with compound...situate in mohalla Maidagin...Benares city.' Sometime later, one of the mortgagors Bahadur Singh, died and his successors-in-interest are. his sons who are defendants 8 to 11 in the present suit.. On 30th November 1936, Sahdeo Singh and the sons of Bahadur Singh sold the mortgaged property to the present plaintiff-appellant, Chhedi Lal. The mortgagee, Mt. Subhagi, is dead and her successors-in-interest are defendants 1 to 6. The surviving mortgag...
Mehdi Raza Vs. Bijai Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All187
Hamilton, J.1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff. The plaintiff Mehdi Raza is the successor-in-interest of some person who in the past was given a village with release from the obligation of paying land revenue. It is apparently the case of the plaintiff that his predecessor-in-interest got the grant in lieu of service and, therefore, the grant comes under the Pensions Act. It is then urged that under Section 300, Government of India Act, the Local Government had no power to remit the rents of the tenants in this village. Very| little has been said about what evidence, if any, there was to show that the plaintiff was a person who had some benefits to which the Pensions Act applied. The preamble of the Pensions Act, 23 of 1871, is to the effect that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to pensions and grants by Government of money or land revenue. In so far as the grant was of a village it does not come either within money or land revenue. The next point is whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›