Allahabad Court March 1945 Judgments
Abdul Haq Vs. Mohd. Hashim and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All200
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal arising: out of a suit for possession of a house situate on a plot of land No. 146 of the abadi of mauza Chail. The plaintiffs case was that he was one of the zamindara of the plot in suit; that originally the house stood on it and it belonged to. Mt. Latifan and to one Jamal; that these persons abandoned the house and left the village. The house consequently reverted to the zamindars as Chail village is an agricultural village. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendants' possession over the house after-its purchase from Ali Abbas was illegal and without any right. In the alternative, the relief sought was for possession, over the site of the house after its demolition and removal of the materials thereof. The plain, tiff claimed to be one of the cosharers in. the plot in question which is situate, in patti Ikram Ullah in Mahal Fazila Bibi by reason of a deed of exchange dated 6th July 1934 obtained by the plaintiff from one M...
Tag this Judgment!Hanno Lal and anr. Vs. Badri Das and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All278
Braund, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit of a somewhat unusual character. The suit was brought by a husband and wife who claimed to be the parents by adoption of a little boy called Giga, otherwise Rekhab Das. This child, we are told, was born in January 1940, and could therefore now be a little over five years old. The defendants to the suit were the natural mother and father and what the plaintiffs claimed was a declaration under Section 42, Specific Relief Act, that they were the duly constituted parents by adoption of this child. The way in which the adoption is said to have come about is that on 15th January 1940, when the baby boy was only three days old, an instrument of adoption was executed by the natural parents giving the child to the plaintiffs in adoption. The child was then duly handed over to its adoptive parents. At some date in April 1941, the natural parents are said to have taken the child away and since that date the child has remained, and is now,...
Tag this Judgment!Hukum Chand Minor Through Mangal Sen and anr. Vs. Kashi Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-28-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All350
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the revenue Court for a share of profits under Section 231, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Munna Lal had a decree against Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya and as this woman's property was protected from sale under the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act the Court transferred to Munna Lal the right to recover the rents and profits of her property for a certain period on condition that he paid half the amount to her. She had an eight anna share in the property and was to get the profits of a four anna share while Munna Lal was to get the profits of the other four annas. Thereafter Hukum Chand and Mangal Sen, the present appellants, also obtained a money decree against Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya and the decree was executed by the Court's making a so-called lease in their favour on her behalf under the terms of which Munna Lal was to pay to them the profits of two annas out of share which he was to pay by the previous arrangement to Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya. As the pro...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sumat Prasad Jain, Advocate Vs. Sheo Dutt Sharma and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All213
Braund, J.1. This second appeal, the facts of which are substantially the same as the facts in the Second : AIR1946All204 with which we have already dealt, raises a question of interest and importance. The facts have already been set out in detail, in our judgments in the other appeal, and for the present purpose it will not be necessary to set them out again. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit for damages for defamation. The plaintiff, Sheo Dutt Sharma, is an agent of the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited of Calcutta and is resident at Nagina. His father, Ram Sarup Shastri, is a Professor of Sanskrit of the Aligarh University and lives at Aligarh. The father owned certain premises within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Nagina and he had occasion to bring a suit against a neighbour - one Baldeo Sahai - upon cause of action in trespass relating to his premises.For the purpose of conducting these proceedings before the Munsif of Nagina, Rain Sarup Shastri...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All385
Braund, J.1. This is an appeal by a man named Ram Das who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ballia for offences under Sections 395 and 435, Penal Code, and Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules. He has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine, under Section 395, Penal Code, and to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 435, Penal Code. Under Rule 35 of the Defence of India Rules, he has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. In my opinion, on the evidence as it stands in this case, the appellant ought not to have been convicted under either Section 395 or Section 435, Penal Code. The case is one which arises out of the disturbances of August 1942, and, in particular, out of certain incidents that took place at a place called Ratanpura on 16th August 1942. It is said that a mob of some four hundred or five hundred people, after holding up a railway train, attacked and looted both the post office and the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Kr. Shushilendra Pal Singh Vs. B. Kailash Chand Bhargava and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All395
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned District Judge. The relevant facts necessary for the purposes of this appeal are these: B. Kailash Chand Bhargava is the proprietor of 'Kailash Electric Mart' at Aligarh. Defendant l, Pt. Tula Ram, started a cinema of the name of Pearl Talkies. This cinema was housed in a building owned by B. Kailash Chand, defendant 3. The plaintiff and Pt. Tula Ram, defendant l, entered into a contract on 25th December 1939 whereunder the plaintiff was to put up electric installations in the cinema hall and it was provided that Pt. Tula Ram would pay Rs. 100 at once and Rs. 100 on the day that the cinema started and that thereafter the Balance of the total amount of Rs. 1600, the costs of the installation, would be paid off by him at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. In case of even one default in payment, it was provided, that the plaintiff will have the right to remove his electric installations. It appears ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All249
Braund, J.1. This is an appeal from the sentences and convictions of seven appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge of Etawah. The appellants were charged under Section 436, Penal Code, and under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, read with Section 149, Penal Code. They were all, with the exception of appellant Munshi Singh, sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 436, Penal Code, one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Penal Code, and seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, and in conjunction with the last sentence the learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed a fine of Ra. 100. In the case of the appellant Munshi Singh the sentences under Section 436, Penal Code, and under Rule 35, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules, are two years less. In the cases of Jagdish and Puttu Singh there are also sentences of whipping. The case is known as the Basrehar Canal Kothi Burning Case. The facts may ...
Tag this Judgment!District Board, Through B. Prakash NaraIn Saxena Vs. Kailash Nath Kapo ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All234
Allsop, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent, Kailash Nath Kapur, was the Secretary of the District Board of Shahjahanpur. The Board dismissed him on 29th January 1940, and his appeal to the Government failed. The Board then passed an ordinary resolution on 16th February 1941, that the part of the respondent's provident fund contributed by the Board (including interest) should be forfeited and the respondent on 11th March 1941, instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal in order to obtain the sole relief that an injunction should be granted restraining the Board from carrying out or giving effect to the resolution. The respondent had not given the Board the notice required by Section 192, District Boards Act, 1922. The respondent's first allegation was that the resolution of dismissal was illegal and ultra vires. The lower Court held that that was a matter which it had no jurisdiction to consider. This decision was not questioned in the arguments before us and I understand that t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. MohsIn Vs. Mohd. Mohtashin
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All281
ORDERSinha, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Budaun. The decree-holder applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The latter claimed that he was an agriculturist at the time of the debt and also at the time of the passing of the Debt Redemtion Act; Section 23, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, therefore constituted a bar to his arrest. The learned Small Cause Court Judge repelled this contention; hence this civil revision.2. The learned Judge finds that the share of the applicant in the khewat is infinitesimal and therefore he is an agriculturist only in name. He, however, held that he would have extended to the applicant the benefit of this provision of the law if his hands were not tied by the order passed in the suit itself, which did not accept the applicant's case that he was an agriculturist. The U.P. Debt Redemption Act was passed for the benefit of the agriculturists and the applicant is entitled to its benefit even if hi...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Ummatul Rahman Vs. Sri Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All277
Allsop, J.1. The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree for money against the judgment-debtor appellant on the basis of a contract dated 9th August 1939. It was a contract by which the judgment-debtor undertook to sell 10,000 maunds of sugarcane juice to the decree-holder at the rate of Rs. 33 per hundred maunds. It was a term of the contract that the judgment-debtor would pay one anna per maund as damages if she supplied less than 8000 maunds, that is, she was to pay one anna per maund on the difference between the amount supplied and the 8000 maunds. On the same date, the judgment-debtor executed a receipt saying that she had received a sum of Rs. 1100 from the decree-holder as the price of sugarcane juice. The payment of this amount in advance was contemplated by the contract itself and it was provided that this amount should be set off against the price of sugarcane juice supplied except that a sum of Rs. 100 should not be deemed to have been paid back till the transaction was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »