Allahabad Court November 1948 Judgments
Chief Inspector of Stamps Vs. Wakf Allalaulad Through Mohamad Ali
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All508
ORDERSeth, J.1. This is an application in revision by the Chief Inspector of Stamps under Section 6B, of the amended Court-fees Act as it applies to these Provinces.2. Two suits were instituted for the preemption of the same sale-deed. The plaintiff in suit No. 1549 of 1943 was one Dr. Diwan Singh. The plaintiff in the other suit, No. 1694 of 1943, was wakf allalaulad. The Court of first instance found that Diwan Singh had a preferential right of pre-emption and, therefore, gave a decree by which Diwan Singh was to have the first option of pre-emption, and wakf allalaulad was to have the right of pre-emption only Diwan Singh failed to deposit the pre-emption money within the time specified by the Court. Aggrieved by this decision wakf allalaulad filed an appeal in the Court below. The wakf paid the court-fee in accordance with Section 7 (vi) of the amended Court-fees Act. It was objected that court-fee was payable in accordance with Schedule 1, Article 1 of the Act. The Court below ove...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Chunna Kunwar and ors. Vs. Mt. Rasili Kunwar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All655
Seth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit, which was partly decreed by the Civil-Judge of Aligarh. F.A. No. 392 of 1939 has been filed by the first three defendants to the suit and the appellant in F.A. No. 427 of 1943 is the plaintiff to the suit. The suit related to the estate of a Gujerati Brahmin, Jani Shyam Shankar alias Shyaman Shankar.2. Jani Shyam Shankar died on 11th April-1914, leaving him surviving a widow, Mt. Chunni Kunwar, and five daughters. The widow continued in possession of the estate of her husband till her death in the year 1936. During this period, she made certain alienations. The plaintiff, Mt. Rasili Kunwar, is a daughter of a deceased daughter of Shyam Shankar, named Mt. Maggo Kunwar, and she claims under an alleged will of Shyam Shankar. The suit was brought against 19 defendants. The relationship of the first 15 defendants inter se and their relationship with the plaintiff will appear from the following extract of pedigree taken from a larger p...
Tag this Judgment!Ghurey and anr. Vs. Rex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ535
Agarwala, J.1. Raghunath, Ghurey and Panaru were prosecuted under B. 302 read with 'S. 84, Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Sukhdeo on 27th June 1947, at about nine o'clock in the morning in village, Raniabagh, police station Adalhat, district Mirzapur, Raghunath was acquitted, but Ghurey and Panaru were convicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to death. The latter have come up in appeal to this Court, and the learned Sessions Judge has also submitted the record to this Court foe confirmation of the death sentence.2. The deceased Sukhdeo Kunbi, son of Biahwanath, was & resident of village Khajraul. Raghunath accused was also a resident of this village. Panaru and Ghurey, appellants, are residents of village Baradih which is situated to the east of village Khajraul about four furlongs away. Village Terhua is about it Ttos from village Khajraul to the north connected by meanB of a metalled road. On the morning of 27th Jane 1947, Sukhdeo deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Ghurey and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All342
Agarwala, J.1. Raghunath, Ghurey and Panaru were prosecuted under Section 802 read with Section 34, Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Sukhdeo on 27th June 1947, at about nine o'clock in the morning in village, Raniabagh, police station Adalhat, district Mirzapur. Raghunath was acquitted, but Ghurey and Panaru were convicted of the offence with which they were charged and sentenced to death. The latter have come up in appeal to this Court, and the learned Sessions Judge has also submitted the record to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence.2. The deceased Sukhdeo Kunbi son of Bishwanath, was a resident of village Khajraul. Raghunath accused was also a resident of this village, Panaru and Ghurey, appellants, are residents of village Baradih which is situated to the east of village Khajraul about four furlongs away. Village Terhua is about 11/2 kos from village Khajraul to the north connected by means of a metalled road. On the morning of 27th June 1947, Sukhd...
Tag this Judgment!Tula Ram Chaudhari Vs. B. Debi Datt Chaudhari
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All498
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal-in a suit brought for realisation of money due on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed on 27th January 1930, for a sum of Rs. 1000 and carried interest at 9 per cent. per annum. The defendant had been regularly paying the interest up to 27th July 1987. The defendant claimed that he was an agriculturist and was entitled to the benefit of Section 34, Agriculturists' Relief Act, and Section 9, Debt Redemption Act. The suit was decreed by the lower Courts and the decree was modified by this Court, with the result that the plaintiff was granted a decree for Rs. 741-10-0 together with pendente lite and future interest at three and a half per cent. per annum and proportionate costs. Two objections have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first objection is that the defendant being an agriculturist, as the plaintiff did not send accounts for the years 1935, 1986 or 1937 under the provisions of Section 34, Sub-section (c), Agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Sahai and ors. Vs. Ch. Mukand Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-29-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All562
Malik, C.J.1. This is a defendants, appeal, The plaintiffs and the defendants are co-sharers. The plaintiffs came into Court on the allegation that a plot No. 884 was pasture land of the co-sharers of the village and the defendants had wrongfully, without the consent of the other co-sharers, brought a portion of the land under their cultivation and had thus ousted the other co-sharers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed joint, possession of the plot. The defence was that plot. No. 884 was not pasture land set apart for grazing of cattle but was banjar land lying useless and the defendants had at considerable expense brought it under cultivation. The lower appellate Court held that the defendants were not able to prove that they had spent Rs. 300, in making the land, which was ban jar land, fit for cultivation, but the defendants had brought it under cultivation. The trial Court had passed a decree in plaintiffs' favour but had protected the cultivatory possession of the defendants, and...
Tag this Judgment!Uma Shanker Singh and ors. Vs. Rama Shanker Jati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All347
1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit brought against them by a mahant for possession over certain properties which had been transferred by his predecessor- in-office on the ground that those transfers were void. The plaintiff paid a court-fee as in a suit for possession only. The office reports that a separate court-fee should also have been paid under Sub-section (iv.a) of Section 7, Court-fees Act. The sub-section runs as follows:In suits for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market-value or an instrument securing money or other property having such value....2. There can be no question that the present suit does in fact involve the adjudging void of certain instruments within the meaning of this sub-section. The office has taken the view that a court-fee is required on the plaint under this subsection in addition to a court-fee payable under Sub-section (v) relating to suits for possession.3. Mr. Shambhu Pras...
Tag this Judgment!Rafiq Ahmad and anr. Vs. Mohammad Shafi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All423
Bhargava, J.1. Rafiq Ahmad and Iqbal Ahmad, the plaintiffs-appellants, instituted a suit against the defendants, Mohammad Shafi and others in the Court of the Civil Judge of Aligarh. That suit came up before the Court for hearing on 18th May 1945. The plaintiffs had summoned more than 20 witnesses for that date; hut only two could be examined on that date. The case was then adjourned for further hearing to the next day, viz, 19th May 1945. On the last mentioned day, one more witness was examined; and, for want of time, the case was adjourned for further hearing to 21st May 1945, on which date the plaintiffs applied for time to move the District Judge for transfer of the suit to some other Court. The application was granted and plaintiffs were ordered to pay Rs. 50 as costs of adjournment. The costs were to be paid by 26th May 1945, but they were not paid. An application for transfer of the suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge; but it was rejected. Thereafter, 26th October ...
Tag this Judgment!Bans Gopal Sheo NaraIn and anr. Vs. P.K. Banerji and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All433
Agarwalla, J.1. This is defendants' application in revision.2. The applicant had entered into a contract with. Sham Behari Lal and Kunj Behari Lal, plaintiffs opposite parties, on 89th December 1939, for the purchase of twenty five bales of gunny bags. The date of delivery fixed in the contract was 25th January 1940. The applicants failed to take delivery of the goods contracted for with the result-that on 23rd January 1943 the plaintiffs opposite parties filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2121 as damages for breach of contract. While the suit was pending the plaintiffs applied on 13th January 1944, for being declared insolvents. Before this application was granted, Mr. P.K. Bannerji, Official Receiver, was appointed an Interim Receiver of the properties of the plaintiffs by the insolvency Court on 15th January 1944. The 4th February 1944 was the date fixed for the final hearing of the suit. On that date the parties applied for time to file a compromise. No compromise was, however, f...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Board Vs. Mansukh Das Sita Ram Through Sita Ram
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-1948
Reported in: AIR1949All331
Wanchoo, J.1. These are three connected references by the District Magistrate of Jhansi under Section 162 (1), U.P. Municipalities Act (II [2] of 1916.2. The facts which have led upto these references are these : The Municipal Board of Jhansi charged Messrs. Mansukh Das Sita Ram octroi duty on some consignment of biris on the basis of Item 73 of Notification No. 1014 23-1 62, dated 20th February 1943, published in the United Provinces Gazette, Part III, p. 94, dated 27th February 1943. Item no. 73 is as follows : 'Foreign tobacco and all kinds of cigars, cheroot3 and cigarettes.' The Municipal Board was of opinion that biris were included in these words and, therefore, assessed the opposite party to octroi. The opposite party took the matter in appeal to the District Magistrate under Section 160, U.P. Municipal Act. On 6th June 1946, the District Magistrate decided in favour of the opposite party and held that biris were not governed by these terms. There was then a review application ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »