Allahabad Court April 1945 Judgments
DIn Dayal and anr. Vs. Qadam Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All54
Malik, J.1. This case raises rather an interesting point. The facts do not clearly appear from the judgment of the lower appellate Court. In so far as it is necessary for the point that has arisen for decision the facts are that Abhai Ram, Khubi and Nanak were proprietors of Mahal Badam and plot No. 1100 was a sir plot in that mahal which was in their possession. Din Dayal was the proprietor of another mahal. Mahal Niadar, and plot No. 609 was a sir plot in that. mahal. The proprietors of Mahal Badam and Mahal Niadar decided by an oral exchange that Din Dayal should get possession of plot No. 1100 in Mahal Badam and Abhai Ram, Khubi and Nanak of plot No. 609 in Mahal Niadar.2. The first point for consideration is what was the position of Din Dayal as a result of this exchange qua this plot No. 1100 which was the sir of Abhai Ram and others and was situated in Mahal Badam in which he was not a cosharer. The appeal before me is confined only to this plot No. 1100. Mr. Chandra Bhan Agarwa...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Goswami Radhey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All271
Allsop and Verma, JJ.1. The main question in this appeal is whether the defendant in a suit in which the plaintiff has made a declaration under Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, is entitled to claim the benefits conferred on debtors by the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The learned Judge of the lower Court held that the defendant in the suit which has given rise to this appeal was so entitled. It is said in Section 4, Debt Redemption Act, the provisions of the Act will not apply if a declaration is made by the plaintiff under that section. Under Section 27 of the Act and the schedule appended thereto certain provisions of the Agriculturists' Relief Act are repealed except in their application to advances made before the first day of June 1940 not being loans as defined in the Debt Redemption Act. It is argued by the appellant that the provisions of Section 27 apply even though it is said in Section 4 that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan where t...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Mohd. Zaki and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All393
Malik, J.1. There is no force in this appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the Municipal Board, Meerut, and two others, Phoola and Changa, for recovery of damages under Section 183, Municipalities Act (2 of 1916), on the ground that the municipal board had by an entirely illegal order, refused the plaintiffs sanction for making constructions over certain chabutras in front of their house. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below and the Municipal Board of Meerut is the appellant in this Court. It is not necessary for me to go into this matter at any very great length. When the plaintiffs applied for sanction for making certain constructions over the chabutras, the municipal board purporting to act under Section 180, U.P. Municipalities Act (2 of 1916), refused the sanction. Under Section 180, Sub-section (2) the board was bound to communicate in writing the reasons for such refusal, but no such reason was given in the order. In the written statement filed on behalf of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankatha Prasad Pande Vs. Brij Mohan Pandey
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All246
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a moiety share of the compensation awarded to the defendant under the Land Acquisition Act and that the defendant be restrained from withdrawing that amount from the deposit in Court.2. The plaintiff's case was that house No. K 61/67 in Deonathpura in the city of Benares belonged to one Jokhan Pande, who died issueless in 1925, and that this house devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant, who are own brothers, in equal shares. This house was acquired under the land acquisition proceedings for the Arya Samaj but compensation in respect of the entire house was awarded to the defendant alone. The plaintiff had filed an objection to the award before the Land Acquisition Officer but on a reference being made to the District Judge it was summarily rejected by the Judge by his order dated 26th April 1910. The suit was contested on various grounds but for the purp...
Tag this Judgment!Khun Khun Chaube Vs. Mahabir Chaube and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1948All261
Yorke, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgments of my two brothers and need therefore say little, except that I entirely agree with their conclusion.2. As regards the first question whether the case is one which falls within the scope of Section 115, Civil P.C., in the Full Bench case, Raghubir Singh v. Mulchand : AIR1937All598 , Sulaiman C.J., took the view that where a Court decides a matter without reference to a section of the Act which is applicable to that matter, there is a material irregularity. The position in the present case is that if the Court below based its decision on the Regulation of 1798 then it must necessarily consider Section 5 of the regulation as well as Section 2. If it has come to a conclusion based upon Section 2 which could not have been reached if the existence of Section 5 had been recognised, then the Court below committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. If, on the other hand the Regulation of 1798 was not applic...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad HusaIn Khan and ors. Vs. Mustafa HusaIn Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All85
Allsop, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Muhammad Husain Khan in order to recover one-ninth share in the property of his deceased brother, Sajjad Husain Khan, who died in the year 1934. The property in suit is described in four schedules. Schedule A includes immovable property which was admittedly owned by Sajjad Hussain Khan: Schedule B contains immovable property which was ostensibly owned by Mt. Sughra Bibi, the wife of Sajjad Husain Khan, but which, according to the plaintiff, was the property of Sajjad Husain Khan himself; the property in Schedule C is a scent manufactory at Jaunpur and the properties in Schedule D are certain articles of moveable property. When Sajjad Husain Khan died, he left surviving him his widow, Mt. Sughra Bibi, a son, Mustafa Husain Khan, three daughters and his father, Mira Bakhsh. The plaintiff rightly says that Mira Bakhsh was entitled under Mahomedan law to one-sixth of Sajjad Husain Khan's property. Mira Bakhsh died in the year 193G...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Amba Prasad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All159
Allsop, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession against a number of defendants and in the alternative for damages or return of consideration from defendant 1. The property in suit was sold to the plaintiff by defendant 1, Amba Prasad, in the year 1932. Defendants 2 and 3, Balkishen and his uncle, Bhagwat Kishen, claim to be the owners of the property and the Courts below have found as a fact that they are. The other three defendants were transferees from Balkishen and Bhagwat Kishen. In the year 1933 the plaintiff instituted a suit to recover possession against Amba Prasad, Sunder Lal, who is not a party, and defendant 4, Chuttan Lal and obtained a decree, but it has been found as a fact that he never obtained possession. The learned Judge of the trial Court on his finding that Balkishen and Bhagwat Kishen were the owners of the property dismissed the suit against defendants 2 to 6 but gave a decree for the return of consideration against Amba Prasad, defendant 1. A...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nath Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1946All150
Wali Ullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decree of the learned Civil Judge of Mirzapur confirming the decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the suit with costs. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 1000 principal and RS. 51 interest total Rs. 1051 from the defendants on the allegation that the latter borrowed Rs. 1000 from one Mt. Bitti on the basis of a promissory note dated 5th July 1937 and agreed to pay the loan with, interest at 12 annas per cent, per mensem on demand. The plaintiff's case was that Mt. Bitti (who is dead) assigned the debt due under the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by making an endorsement on the back of it, on 8th December 1939. The defendants contested the suit on the grounds: (1) that the promissory note being improperly stamped was not admissible in evidence and the suit on its basis, therefore, could not be decreed; (2) that Mt. Bitti had not endorsed the p...
Tag this Judgment!Krishan Chandra Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All280
ORDERMulla, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Krishan Chandra who has been convicted by the Courts below under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Rules, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. The applicant is admittedly one of the proprietors of a joint family firm carrying on business in cloth in the town of Bindki in the Fatehpur District. It has been found as a fact by the Courts below that on 22nd February 1943, the firm, of which the applicant is admittedly one of proprietors and which is known as Krishan Chandra Brij Kishore, despatched 196 bags of wheat to Messrs. Owen Roberts & Co, Military Suppliers, from Bindki to Delhi. On 7th October 1942, the District Magistrate of Fatehpur had passed an order in pursuance of the power vested in him by a notification issued by the Provincial Government that wheat shall not be sold in Bindki at a rate of more than 5 seers 2 chhataks per rupee. A copy of that order is Ex. P-15 on the record. According to the prosecution, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Singh and ors. Vs. Chhajju Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945All408
Allsop, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent from certain thekadars. The defendants executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and then took a theka from him. The defendants thereafter made an application under Section 4, Encumbered Estates Act. A money decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 28th August 1939, on the basis of the mortgage. The defendants did not get formal possession till 18th December 1940, but they were of course in actual occupation of the property as the result of the theka in their favour. The plaintiff then instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal to recover rent from the defendants for the period from 28th August 1939 to 18th December 1940. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the suit, but the learned Additional District Judge in appeal set aside his decision and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.2. In this second appeal it is urged that the plaintiff had no prop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »