Allahabad Court May 1944 Judgments
Dr. Sir Hafiz Mohd. Vs. Shiam Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All177
Sinha, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these : The village in dispute is Chhatari in the District of Bulandshahr. It has extensive abadi which is divided into houses and shops. They are occupied by ryots who pay rent only for the shops and not for residential houses. The plaintiff is admittedly its sole zamindar. Shiam Lal, defendant 1 and his two sons Shiva Shankar alias Sallo and Baldeo Shankar alias Ballo, defendants 2 and 3, are his sons. Defendant 4 is the son of the brother of Shiam Lal. The first three defendants occupy a house in the abadi of mauza Chhatari. They do not, however, pay any rent or other dues to the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to Court with the following allegations : The defendants lived in the abadi of mauza Chhatari as ryots and were entitled to use and occupy the said house for residential purpose only, he being the owner of the site of the house. The plaintiff went on to say that the defendants, who were members of a joint Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Ode Ram Vs. Chhida Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All276
Malik, J.1. This revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 200 with interest thereon in the Court of Small Causes at Bulandshahr. The suit having been dismissed the plaintiff has filed this revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The suit was, according to the plaintiff, on the basis of a bond dated 7th May 1934 for Rs. 200 and the plaintiff brought the suit on 6th May 1940 for the recovery of the amount and for interest thereon. The defendant alleged that the document dated 7th May 1934 was a zarepeshgi lease of ex-proprietary plots for a period of seven years. The zar-i-peshgi lease or mortgage was, there, fore, invalid and the plaintiff had no cause of action to maintain the suit. The defendant had further pleaded that the plaintiff had remained in possession for five years and had himself given up possession and that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Judge framed three issues of which only issue 1 is relevant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Qayum Bux Vs. L. Radhey Shiam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All291
Dar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree, dated 2lst March 1942, of the Civil Judge of Budaun by which he varied a judgment and decree, dated 21st March 1940, of the Assistant Collector, first class, of Budaun in a suit for recovery of arrears of theka money. On 15th August 1932, defendant 2, Ram Sahai, who was the usufructuary mortgagee of 86 bighas and 14 biswas of Mauza Narao Khurd, Mahal Asmani, Patti Molvi Wahid Bux, executed a patta of the said property in favour of defendant 1, K.B. Maulvi Wahid Bux. The rent reserved under the theka was a fixed sum of Rs. 430 which was payable every year by the thekadar irrespective of any 'calamity, suspension or remission of rent.' On 1st May 1939, the lessor made an assignment of the theka money which was due for 1344F. to the plaintiff Radhey Shyam, and after taking assignment on 26th May 1939, he raised an action in the Court of the Assistant Collector, first class, of Budaun for recovery of a sum of Ks. 454 as the theka m...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Thakur Sitaramji Maharaj Brijman Mandir, Through Seth Lakhmi Kumar ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All279
Malik, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by Sri Thakur Sitaramji Maharaj and Seth Lakhmi Kunwar who claims that he is the duly appointed sarbarahkar of plaintiff 1. The defendant to the suit was one Raghunath Das who had been working as the sarbarahkar. The plaintiff's case was that his grandfather Sita Ram has founded the temple of Sri Thakur Sitaramji at Bindraban but had not appointed any sebaits. He had a wife Raj-bai and an adopted son Sri Niwas Das. They managed the temple in their lifetimes and on the death of Sri Niwas Das his widow Rafbai became the manager. Lakhmi Kunwar, plaintiff 2, alleges that he is the adopted son of Sri Niwas Das and is thus entitled to the management. During the plaintiff's minority it is said that Mt. Rajbai appointed the defendant her general attorney and authorized him to make realizations and manage the temple. Raghunath Das got his name wrongly entered in the village papers as sarbarahkar. The defendant had applied for insolvency a...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Shah Jahan Begum and ors. Vs. Ibn Ali and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All69
Allsop, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent arises out of a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C. It appears that one Muzaffar Ali Khan executed a deed of wakf on 18th March 1907. He dedicated certain property, which at that time produced an income of Rs. 17-8-0 a month, in order to give some assistance to a school and a mosque. A sum of Rs. 5 was to be paid to two men for reciting parts of the Quran after prayers. Of the balance Rs. 10 a month was to be paid to the plaintiff, Ibn Ali, who was the Pesh namaz at the mosque and the manager and the first teacher of the school. Other small sums of annas 8 a month were to be expended on repairs, lighting and similar objects. Muzaffar Ali Khan appointed himself mutwalli and reserved to himself the right to make modifications in the terms of the wakf. In exercise of this right he executed a further deed on 8th January 1910, by which he appointed Ata Husain, Mahmood Ali, Ismail Hasan and Ejaz Ali to be the mutwallis after his death. He died ...
Tag this Judgment!Somnath Pandya Vs. Municipal Board
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All235
Malik, J.1. This appeal is connected -with second appeal No. 222 of 1940. The facts of this case are slightly different. On 26th April 1933 the plaintiff applied for permission to construct certain projections in his house. The Executive Officer of the Board exercising the powers and functions of the Board refused sanction for two projections on 23rd June 1937. The plaintiff then appealed to the Board, which by its resolution dated 23rd November 1937, allowed the appeal and sanctioned the construction of the projections. The resolution along with other resolutions was put up before the Commissioner who by his order dated 19th February 1938 suspended the resolution of the Board and issued directions under Section 34(4) of the Act. The Courts below have found that the offending projections were completed before the resolution of the Board was vacated. The only question for consideration is whether under Section 34(4) the Board is entitled to remove the constructions which were constructe...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Thakur Rangji Maharaj Brajman Mandir Brindaban Under Management o ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945All6
Malik, J.1. The plaintiff is the zamindar of village Aring. Defendant 5 was the owner of a shop in the said village which he sold to defendants 1 to 4 for Rs. 870 on 19th January 1933. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to a 10 per cent. of the sale price as haq-i-zamindari in accordance with a custom prevailing in the village and recorded in the wajibularz and he was thus entitled to Rs. 87 which the defendants had not paid to the, plaintiff and the plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to claim the said sum with interest. The interest upto the date of suit claimed was Rs. 47. The total claim, therefore, was for Rs. 134. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds, two of which are now material for the purpose of this appeal, viz., that there was no such custom as set out by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has filed this appeal. The question for consideration b...
Tag this Judgment!B. Gouri Shankarlal Vs. Jamuna Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All237
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Azamgarh in insolvency proceedings. The appellant when he was adjudicated was the owner of a large amount of landed property and consequently would not have been entitled to the benefits provided by the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940. His property vested in the Official Receiver who sold a large part of it. When there was only so much property remaining that the owner of it would have been protected by the Debt Redemption Act, the appellant made an application that the decrees passed against him should be revised and that the debts for which he was liable should be examined in the light of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The question arose in the Court below whether it could be said that the monies due amounted to loans because at the time when the advances were made the appellant was not an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act. The question raised is somewhat complicated, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohini Mohan and ors. Vs. Rahmat Ullah Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All241
Malik, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal. On 12th October 1907 Majibullah Khan and Abdul Rahman Khan sold certain zamindari properties to Madan Gopal, Abdulla Khan and Lakshman Prasad, one-third each for Rs. 4000. On 16th June 1908 the parties entered into a registered agreement under which it was provided that the three vendees would each pay to Majibullah Khan a sum of Rs. 12 per annum, in all Rs. 36, as malikana provided Majibullah Khan deposited a sum of Rs. 600 with the vendees as 'Zare amanat'. It was mentioned that this sum of Rs. 600 was being deposited by Majibullah after borrowing without interest a sum of Rs. 300 from Abdul Eahman Khan. On the death of Majibullah Khan this annuity of Rs. 36 was to cease but the vendees were required to refund the sum of Rs. 300 to Majibullah's heirs and another sum of Rs. 300 to Abdul Rahman Khan or his heirs. The document went on to provide that in case the vendees did not refund the sum of Rs. 600 as mentioned above they were to continue t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramzan Khan and ors. Vs. JamaluddIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944All272
ORDERPlowden, J.1. These are connected revisions from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Fatehpur, dated 31st December 1943, and from the order under Section 145, Criminal P.C. of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Patehpur, dated 3lst May 1943. The judgment of the same Magistrate was also dated 31st May 1943.2. The facts are that there was a dispute about landed property which became submerged in the Granges during the rainy season of 1942 which was an exceptionally heavy one. In October the zamindars, according to the finding of the Courts, took possession and the tenants attempted to oust them with the result that there was a riot in which a number of people were injured. This riot is the subject-matter of the case decided by the Magistrate on 31st May and by the Sessions Judge on appeal on 3lst December 1943. The Magistrate sentenced a number of people to rigorous imprisonment under Sections 147, 447, 323 and 325 read with Section 149, Penal Code. At the same time, he ordered the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »