Allahabad Court January 1945 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.
Rajrup Rai and ors. Vs. Sheo Shankar Rai and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All308
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by one Shyam Narain. Shyam Narain had two brothers, Narsingh Rai and Jai Narain. Narsingh Rai had two sons, Sheo Shanker Rai and Sheo Murat Rai, and Jai Narain had three sons, Rajrup, Munua and Kamal. Shyam Narain had no issue, he and his brothers and his brother's sons were members of a joint Hindu family. Shyam Narain instituted his suit on 14th February 1940 after the death of Narsingh Rai. He impleaded Jai Narain, the sons of Jai Narain and the sons of Narsingh Rai. While the suit was pending, he died on 20th August 1940. Jai Narain then made an application that he should be substituted as plaintiff in place of Shyam Narain. This application was made on 3lst August 1940. Before orders could be passed upon it, Jai Narain died on 20th July 1941. His sons made an application for substitution on 21st August 1941 and their application was granted on 5th January 1942. They made an application for amendment of t...
M. Ram NaraIn Vs. Mukat Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All283
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money on the basis of a promissory note. The only questions in appeal are whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and to costs. It is not denied that the provisions of the Agriculturists'Relief Act apply to this case. Under the provisions of Section 32 of that Act, the creditor is compelled (a) to maintain a correct account of the transaction and (b) to supply the debtor with a full and correct statement of account every year. Under the provisions of Section 34 the Court is bound to disallow costs if the creditor does not keep proper accounts and is bound to disallow interest for every period in respect of which a statement of account is not supplied to the debtor. In the case before me, the debtor took the plea that' the creditor had not kept proper accounts within the meaning of the Act and the creditor did not establish that he had done so. It followed in accordance with the mandatory provision of Secti...
Malkhan Singh and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All226
ORDERWali Ullah, J.1. This is an application in revision by Malkhan Singh and Latoor Singh for restoration of possession over a house from which they allege, they were dispossessed under the orders of the learned Magistrate under Section 522, Criminal P.C. It appears that Tej Bir Singh filed a complaint against the applicants for their prosecution under Section 448, Penal Code, for forcible entry into a house after breaking open the lock. The applicants were convicted by the learned Magistrate but the conviction was set aside on appeal. It appears, however, that after the conviction of the applicants by the learned Magistrate and before the order of the appellate Court the complainant Tej Bir Singh obtained possession of the house under the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 522, Criminal P.C. After their acquittal, the applicants moved the learned Magistrate for rescinding his previous order delivering possession to the complainant. The learned Magistrate, however, by his o...
Mt. Surja Vs. Aziz Ullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All305
Bennett, J.1. The appellant, Mt. Surja, obtained a decree in the following circumstances. She applied under Section 33 Agriculturists' Belief Act, for an account of money for which she had been liable upon a mortgage executed on 17th August 1926. A decree was passed on 2nd December 1940 in the following terms:The plaintiff's suit be decreed with costs. It is declared that the mortgage deed in dispute has been satisfied and that a sum of Rs. 297 was payable to the plaintiff by the defendants up to the end of kharif 1348.The decree further provided that the defendants should pay a sum of Rs. 91-13-0, the costs of the suit, to the plaintiff. On 18th January 1941, the appellant paid court-fee on the amount in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 33 and applied for a decree. The Court held that no fresh decree was necessary. It was only necessary to note in the original decree that the court-fee had been paid. There can be no doubt that this view was correct accordin...
MahanaraIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All19
Verma, J.1. The appellant, Mahanarain, who is a resident of village Dadraul in the district of Shahjahanpur, has been convicted under Section 302, Penal Code, and has been sentenced to death. The charge against the appellant was that he on 7th February 1944, early in the afternoon, committed the murder of one Malkhan - who was also a resident of village Dadraul - by stabbing him with a knife at Paintapur in the Har - which apparently means a field in which no crops arc standing or land which is used for grazing cattle-.and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Penal Code. Mahanarain has appealed against his conviction and the sentence of death passed on him and the record has also been submitted to this Court for the confirmation of the death sentence. As has been indicated above, the appellant Mahanarain as well as the deceased Malkhan were residents of village Dadraul. Paintapur is a hamlet of Dadraul and is situated to the east of that village. It appears from t...
Shambhu Singh Vs. Ram Pal Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All177
Yorke, J.1. This is an execution second appeal which raises the question whether, and if so in what circumstances, an executing Court is entitled to question the validity of a decree forwarded to it for execution. On 10th September 1912 a simple mortgage was executed by one Puran Singh (who subsequently made a transfer of the property in favour of the defendant-appellant Th. Shambhu Singh) in favour of the plaintiff Th. Ram Pal Singh in respect of certain property situated in pergana Ghiror of the Mainpuri district. On 2nd July 1932 the mortgagee instituted a suit No. 245 of 1932 for sale of the property in the Court of the Munsif of Mainpuri. Pergana Ghiror lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif of Shikohabad but the suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4770 and the suit therefore properly speaking lay in the Court of the Civil Judge of Mainpuri. It so happened that at this date the Munsif of Mainpuri, Mr. Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi, had extended jurisdiction up to...
Madho Prasad and ors. Vs. Kanhaiya Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All1
Malik, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of money filed by one Kanhaiya Lal. It is now not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail. The claim was for Rs. 11,749-14-6. The suit was brought against Madho Prasad, Beni Prasad and Ragho Prasad who are brothers. Ragho Prasad was a minor. His eldest brother Madho Prasad was his certificated guardian, but as Madho Prasad refused to act as his guardian in the case Bindeshari Prasad Vakil was appointed his guardian ad litem. Bishambhar Nath Khazanchi was impleaded as defendant 4 on the ground that the hundis on the basis of which the suit was filed and which were originally in favour of Bishambhar Nath Khazanchi had been transferred by him in due course to Lala Kanhaiya Lal, the plaintiff. Various objections were raised by the defendants and they pleaded that the hundis had been obtained by Bishambhar Nath Khazanchi by undue influence and the said hundis were not for consideration. It was further pleaded that an...
B. Buttan Singh and ors. Vs. Sakal Raj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All161
Bennett, J.1. The only question to be considered in this appeal is a question of limitation. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the suit, obtained a preliminary decree on a mortgage in 1936. The mortgage was executed on 13th November 1927 for Rs. 426. The Munsif who granted the preliminary decree gave the defendants the benefit of the Agriculturists' Relief Act by reducing the interest and allowing payment by instalments. The order passed by him on 1st September 1936 was as follows:Suit is decreed with costs for Rs. 425 as principal and interest at 12 per cent, up to 1st January 1930 and thereafter it would be reduced to 9 1/2 per cent. Pendente lite and future interest is reduced to 3 1/4 per cent. The defendants are allowed to pay the sum in eight instalments which would be due in January and July of every year. Usual law in case of default.No instalments were paid by the defendants, but the decree-holder did not apply for a final decree for. sale under Order 3, Rule 4, Civil P...
Mohammad Hafiz Ullah and anr. Vs. United Provinces and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All285
Bennett, J.1. The only question for consideration in this second appeal is whether a lease has determined by forfeiture by reason of the fact that in a previous suit the lessor's title was denied by the lessees, that is whether the lease has determined according to the provisions of Section 111(g), T.P. Act. The lease in question which was a perpetual lease, was executed in the year 1841 by a man named Dildar Khan in favour of a Mr. Reid, who was then Collector of Gorakhpur. The lease was granted for building purposes. Subsequently, the Secretary of State for India was recorded in the records in place of Mr. Reid and the plots covered by the lease are now said to be under the management of the Notified Area Committee of Gorakhpur. The previous suit was brought, I understand, because the Secretary of State for India had been recorded as proprietor of the land. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were the owners and that the defendant was only a lessee. They also sued for dem...
Ashfaq Ali Beg Alias Naney Pahlawan and ors. Vs. Lalla Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All309
Bennett, J.1. The only question for consideration in these two appeals is whether the provisions of Section 21, Civil P.C., apply in case of suits brought under the U.P. Debt Redemption Act of 1940. There are special provisions in Section 6 of that Act regulating the place of suing, these provisions being different from those contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 6 commences by saying,Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, every suit to which this Act applies shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which the defendant resides.The section is in some respects similar to Section 20, Civil P.C. but there are some variations and there is no provision at all for the suit being brought where the cause of action wholly or in part arises, as there is in the Code. In the eases under consideration the objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was taken at the earliest opportunity and there was an is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »