Allahabad Court April 1944 Judgments
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Kr. Lalit Mohan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All199
ORDERMalik, J.1. This revision has been filed by the Chief, Inspector of Stamps. The facts of this case will be j clear from the following pedigree:MATHURA PRASAD|--------------------| |Badri Prasad Kailash Prasad. = | D. 1. Sri Uma Devi| || Kr. Lalit Mohan.-----------------| |Sirish Chandra Subhas ChandraD. 2. D. 3.2. The suit was originally filed by Mathura Prasad for certain reliefs. He died during the pendency of the suit, and after his death Lalit Mohan became the plaintiff. The reliefs claimed on behalf of Lalit Mohan who is a I minor are as follows : (1) Declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of a one half share in the properties in eluded in Schedule A. (2) Partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one half share in the properties contained in Schedule B. (3) Partition and separate possession] of the plaintiff's half share in Schedule C which consisted of various mortgages and bonds etc. The valuation of the suit was Rs. 43-552-15-0 out of which the property in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nand Kishore Pandey Vs. GoshaIn Kirtarath Gir and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All217
Malik, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal.2. The decree-holder filed a suit (No. 218 of 1931 of the Additional Civil Judge's Court, Jaunpur) and obtained a decree on 12th January 1932 for possession by removal of certain encroachments. The defendants filed an appeal but they were unsuccessful and the appeal was dismissed on 31st March 1933.3. On 2nd March 1936 within three years of the decision of the first appellate Court the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree.4. While the execution application was pending one Sheoram Pande filed a Suit No. 321 of 1936, against the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and obtained an interim injunction.5. The interim injunction was received by the executing Court on 10th September 1936 and on the same date the executing Court disposed of the execution case by the following order: 'Struck off for non-satisfaction with costs to decree-holder.'6. The Suit No. 321 of 1936 filed by Sheoram Pande was dismissed on 23rd October 1937 with ...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Surya Pal Singh Vs. Chiranji and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All170
Iqbal Ahmad, C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of my brother Judges constituting the Full Bench. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by my brother Hamilton J.Allsop, J.2. We have before us two second appeals and application in revision. One Second Appeal, No. 224 of 1942, arises out of a suit for arrears of rent in the Court of an Assistant Collector in the Etah district. The trial Court gave the plaintiff, Raja Surya Pal Singh, a decree for Rs. 137-12.0 with proportionate costs and interest on account of the rent for the years 1846 and 1847F, but refused to give any relief on account of the other years in suit, namely, Rabi 1348 and Kharif 1344F., on the ground that the defendant, Krishan Pal Singh, was protected by the provisions of the Stayed Arrears of Rent (Remission) Act (U.P. Act 18 of 1939) because the rent payable by him was not more than Rs. 500 a year.3. Krishan Pal Singh had three holdings of his own and was one of several co-tenants in five others...
Tag this Judgment!Sahu Harishchandra Vs. L. Bhagwan Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All255
Malik, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for profits for the years 1344 and 1345 F. brought against the defendant.lambardar. The plaintiff purchased some property under a sale deed in the year 1936. The sale deed was, however, pre-empted and a decree for preemption was passed against the plaintiff on 12th May 1989. The pre-emptor deposited the pre-emption money on 10th August 1939, and he has now got possession of the property and has become the owner thereof. The plaintiff, however, claims that prior to this deposit on 10th August 1939, it must be deemed that he was a cosharer of the property and was entitled to get his share of the profits from the lambardar. He has, therefore, brought the suit for a period beginning from July 1936 to July 1938. The defendant-lambardar objected that the plaintiff had no right to claim any profits inasmuch as after the decree for pre-emption. it must be held that the pre-emptor was substituted in place of the plaintiff-vendees from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Shahu Avadesh Kumar and ors. Vs. S. Zakaul HusnaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All243
Sinha, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 752-12-0 by way of refund of part of the sale-consideration. On 19th February 1930 a lady, Mt. Zakia Khatoon, sold 3 biswas and 6 biswansis of land situate in mahal Khalsa Uda of mauza Adalpur to one Sahu Ram Kumar, the father of the appellants. On 29th July 1932 mutation with regard to this was effected in favour of Sahu Ram Kumar, although it must also be borne in mind that he was the lambardar of the village and must have been in possession of this property even before mutation, though, certainly, in a different capacity. It appears that a portion of this property belonged to a man named Tyeb Husain and he sent a notice to Sahu Ram Kumar conveying him a warning as regards the title of Mt. Zakia Khatoon. Tyeb Husain wrote to say that she had no title to the portion of the property which belonged to him. Notwithstanding the warning, the appellant's father Sahu Ram Kumar, purchased the property on...
Tag this Judgment!District Board of Dehra Dun Vs. Damodar Datt and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All223a
Sinha, J.1. The District Board of Dehra Dun brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 99-7-0 on account of circumstances and property tax, against the defendants for the years 1935-36, 1936-37, 1937-38 and 1938-39, on the ground that the defendant's father resided within its jurisdiction, that is, within the rural area of the District Board of Dehra Dun. The defence was a denial of the plaintiff's case about the residence of Kishen Dutt within the rural area. Certain other defences were taken, which it is not necessary to set forth here.2. The learned Judge of the Court below did not believe the plaintiff's case, but accepted the defendant's version of the story that Kishen Dutt did not reside within the rural area and the plaintiff, therefore, had no right to lay any claim against the defendants, who were his sons.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has taken his stand upon Sections 128 and 131, U.P. District Boards Act (Local Act 10 of 1922). Section 128 provides thatan appeal against ...
Tag this Judgment!Zamir Qasim and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All137
ORDERIsmail and Mulla, JJ.1. In the case of Zamir Qasim a point of law has arisen which relates to the interpretation of Section 428(1)(b)(2), Criminal P.C., which says that the appellate Court may in an appeal from a conviction alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding reduce the sentence. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the Crown that in case the charges under Sections 120B and 457, Penal Code, are not made out against Zamir Qasim, it is open to this Court to convict him either under Section 411 or Section 414, Penal Code. He was charged of these offences along with others in the Court below. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found him guilty under two counts only, namely, Sections 120B and 457, Penal Code. There is no specific order of acquittal with respect to other charges, but from the language of the charge and the finding of the learned1 Judge of the Court below with respect to that charge, it is manifest that in his judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Bhagwan Devi Vs. Mt. Jai Devi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All224a
Malik, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The property in suit had belonged to one Gopi Nath who died on 27th May 1941, leaving his mother Mt. Jai Devi who is defendant 1 and the plaintiff the widow of a pre-deceased son Jagdish Prasad.2. The plaintiff's case was that under the Hindu Women's Eights to Property Act, 18 of 1937, she was entitled to inherit the entire property left by Gopi Nath. The suit wag contested by Jai Devi and Debi Prasad, brother of Gopi Nath. The lower Court held, that the plaintiff had no right to claim any share in the agricultural land left by Gopi Nath by reason of a decision of the Federal Court, In the matter of the Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act, 1937, reported in ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 72, and therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's claim as regards the agricultural property. The lower Court further held that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act was meant to better the rights of those women who had no such rights and not to take away the rights ...
Tag this Judgment!Jugul Kishore and ors. Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All231
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. The allegations were that mutwalli was denying that there was a public trust in favour of the temple which was subject of the trust and that he was mismanaging the temple. The learned Judge has found that the allegations of mismanagement are grossly exaggerated. The temple is apparently in a perfectly good state of repair and the major festivals are all properly performed. There has been a reduction in the expenditure on minor festivals and possibly on the distribution of sweetmeats and so forth but this is largely due to the fact that the present mutwalli and his predecessors have been subjected to a series of suits. It appears that one Ram Lal was at the bottom of these suits and he appears to be at the bottom of the one which has given rise to this appeal. One of the plaintiffs is his son and another is a friend of his. The third appears to have taken no great interest in the matter and it is very doubtful wh...
Tag this Judgment!Shib Singh Vs. Mt. Gaura
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All76
Malik, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The plaintiff respondent Mt. Gaura, filed a suit for profits under Section 226, U.P. Tenancy Act, against Shib Singh appellant in the revenue Court. Shib Singh in defence alleged that Bihari, husband of Mt. Gaura, was joint with Shib Singh's father, Durga, at the time of Bihari's death and therefore the rights of Behari in the joint family property came by survivorship to the defendant Shib Singh and Mt. Gaura had no right to claim a share of the profits. This plea raised in defence having involved a question as regards proprietary title, the revenue Court, under Section 286 of the Act, framed an issue on the question and submitted the record to the Court of the learned Munsif for determination, The learned Munsif held that the family was separate and on return of the finding the Assistant Collector decreed the suit. Against that decision Shib Singh filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge of Shahjahanpur. The learned District...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »