Allahabad Court October 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.
Kishen Lal Vs. B. Preduman Kishen Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All303
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal against the following order by the learned Judge of the Court below:The appellant and his pleader are absent and. hence he is ordered to pay the deficit court-fee. If it has not been paid by 15th January 1943, this appeal shall stand dismissed on 16th January 1943.We have examined the record and apparently the learned Judge assumed that he did not mean that the appeal should stand dismissed without further orders because on the application of the appellant he allowed, the appellant time to come to this Court and. obtain an order for stay so that the appeal might not be dismissed in pursuance of the order to which we have referred. However, that may be, the order of the learned Judge was apparently justified because the appellant did not appear to contest the allegation that the court-fee paid on his memorandum. Of appeal was insufficient. We have felt, however, that it would be advisable for us to go into the question of court-fees on the-merits in order ...
Bal Govind Vs. Babu Ram Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All283
Allsop, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The appellant was a simple mortgagee and he was also a tenant holding certain plots of land from the mortgagor. The suit was one by the mortgagor under Section 33, Agriculturists' Relief Act, for an account of the amount due. The plaintiff alleged that the interest on the mortgage had been set off against the rent due from the appellant mortgagee under an oral agreement to that effect. The trial Court held that the agreement could not be proved. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court decided that there was no reason why the agreement should' not be proved and, therefore, remanded the suit to be decided upon its merits.2. It is argued in appeal that the agreement should not be proved because of the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act, and we have been referred to the case in Kali Deen Singh v. Jagat Pathak : AIR1930All440 . This case has nothing to do with this matter. It was a case for ejectment of a tenant in which ...
Joti Prasad and ors. Vs. Babu Basdeo Sahai Bhargava, Advocate and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All267
1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether a surrender by a Hindu lady in favour of her sons of the entire estate in which she held the same limited interest as a Hindu widow, so as to accelerate their succession, amounts to a transfer of the nature of a gift within the meaning of Section 7(3), U.P. Encumbered Estates Act.2. The lady in this case, Mt. Ramdei, had inherited the estate as a daughter. She had applied under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, and decrees in those proceedings had already been passed and sent to the Collector for execution when she executed a document, described as a dastbardari, in favour of her sons. This document was registered and thereafter the sons applied to be substituted for their mother in these proceedings. The Special Judge rejected the application, holding that the object of the transaction was to prejudice the creditors by protecting the property from sale. Under the provisions of the Debt Redemption Act (13 [XIII] of ...
Mt. Moondari and anr. Vs. Sankatha and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All384
Malik, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Mt. Moondari and Bishunath, defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs and Baja Beni Madho Prasad Singh of Kantit, defendant, are impeaded as respondents. The plaintiffs filed a suit out of which the above appeal has arisen on the allegation that Sattami Ohamar was the owner of a house which was partly dilapidated and was not kept in a state of good repairs. He sold the house to the plaintiffs under a sale deed dated 12th October 1936. After the sale the plaintiffs got possession of the house. The zamindar, Raja Beni Madho Prasad Singh of Kantit, gave a lease of the site to Mt. Moondari on some date after 1936 and defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, are said to have dismantled the constructions which stood on the site and started building on the same. The plaintiffs filed this suit for recovery of possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in any way. The suit was resi...
Bohra Baijnath Vs. Hoti and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All282
ORDERVerma, J.1. The opposite parties have not appeared although they have been served in a manner which is sufficient under the law. The result is that I have not had the benefit of hearing any arguments on their behalf. I am satisfied, however, that Mr. Krishna Shanker, who appears for the petitioner, has placed before me all the material facts and all the relevant provisions of the law applicable to the case. On 20th July 1939, the petitioner for revision obtained a decree from the Court of an Assistant Collector, first class, for arrears of rent in a suit valued at more than Rs. 200. He applied for the execution of that decree, but he failed to appear on one of the dates fixed for the hearing of the execution case. The Assistant Collector thereupon dismissed the execution application for want of prosecution (ba adam pairavi). The petitioner took an appeal from that order of the Assistant Collector to the Court of the District Judge. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal o...
Panni Lal Vs. Anant Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All284
Malik, J.1. The plaintiff, Panni Lal, brought a suit for possession of a house in the abadi against the defendant, Anant Singh, on the ground that the defendant, Anant Singh, had, without any right, wrongfully dispossessed him in March 1940. The plaintiff's allegations were that there was a house in the abadi which had belonged to one Chita. After the-death of Chita, it came into the possession of his widow and she died about two years back without leaving any issue with the result that the house reverted to the zamindar, the Raja of Tirwa. The Raja of Tirwa decided to auction the house and give it to the highest bidder, but ultimately agreed to accept from the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 75 as malikana dues and give him the house. On 18th January 1940 the plaintiff paid to the Raja Rs. 75. The receipt, Ex. 1, mentions that the payment was 'babat malikana makan.' After this payment Panni Lal became entitled to enter into possession of the house, to live in it and to rebuild it, if he thou...
Mt. Jamna Kunwar Vs. Lal Bahadur and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All262
Sinha, J.1. This is an application under Section 110 and Order 45, Rule 2, Civil P.C., for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The following genealogical table will be of assistance in following the case: RAI JWALA SHANKER | _________________________________________________ | | |Rai Neta Nand Gauri Shanker Tika Ram(died in 1925) (died in 1936) | | | _________________ (His sons and grandsons | | are now the landlord 2nd wife 1st wife debtors with the exoep- Mt. Brij Eani Mt. Bittan tion of Virendra Bahadur | | grand son) | | | Mt. Jumna Kuer | Objector | Kunj Behari (died on 9th March 1932)2nd wife | Rai Bakhtawar SinghMt. Rani Kunwar | (died in 1884)(died in 1903) |Mt. Bittan | Husband Babboo Tika Ram(died in 1896) | (died on 27th Dec. 1929) |Mt. Jamuna Kunwar daughter2. The sons and grandsons of Gauri Shanker made an application under Section 4, U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, on 21st September 1935. They furnished a list of certain property. On 20th August 1936, they furnished a ...
Jarbandhan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All245
ORDERBennett, J.1. This application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, has been pressed only in respect of an order of costs passed by the District Judge of Allahabad on an appeal under Section 476B, Criminal P.C. It is contended that on such an appeal he had no jurisdiction to award costs. Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to an unreported decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in Amir Jan v. Chandra Bhan Civil Revn. No. 82 of 1939. Belying on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Purna Chandra ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 548 and a decision of the Punjab Chief Court in Bishen Das v. Rahmat Khan ('15) 2 A.I.R. 1915 Lah. 440 the learned Judge held that a Court has no power to direct payment of costs in proceedings connected with applications for sanction to prosecute, though taken in a civil Court. For the opposite party it was pointed out that when orders are passed in appeal under Section 476B by a Civil Court, they can be challenged in revision ...
Mohammad Sulaiman Khan Vs. Mohammad Rahimdad Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Oct-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All331
Mathur, J.1. These are three connected appeals arising out of proceedings under the Encumbered Estates Act. Mohammad Sulaiman Khan the appellant in each of these three appeals applied under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act giving a list of the properties which he claimed to be his. Notices were published under Section 9 of the said Act specifying the properties mentioned by the applicant under Section 8. Thereupon two objections were filed by Rahimdad Khan and. a third by Mt. Wilayati Begum. One objection of Rahimdad Khan related to his share in village Amkhera. He claimed that the said property belonged to him by virtue of a deed of gift executed by his father Haji Mohammad Daood Khan in his favour. By a second objection he claimed to be mutwalli of 15 shops and 10 houses together with shares in five villages under a deed of wakf executed by the said Haji Mohammad Daood Khan. The third objection of Mt. Wilayati Begum related to a house and a baithak which she claimed to be her proper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›