Allahabad Court February 1924 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.
Gaya Prasad and anr. Vs. Firm Muthu Lal Budha Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.1050
1. We think that the learned Judge went a little too far in cancelling the order of the 15th of July 1922. We think we understand what his intention was, but it has left the matter in somewhat of a muddle, because if the order of the 15th of July is cancelled, the application ceases to exist, and the notice to the parties and the arbitrators is no longer effective. On the other hand, the parties before us are agreed that the application has not been disposed of and is still pending. All we can do, therefore, is while suggesting that the arbitrators shall not go on with their arbitration while the application to revoke the submission is pending to cancel the order of Mr. Holme of the 13th of August 1923, and to send the matter back in order that the application for revocation be heard and determined at a very early date. If the Distriot Court of Cawnpore possesses a copy of the last Edition of Russel on Arbitration, namely, the 10th Edition, 1919, edited by Mr. Hudson, it will find in a...
Parbhu Dayal Vs. Murli Dhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All867; 78Ind.Cas.677
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant arising out of a suit for specific performance of a contract. As the appeal raises a question of limitation both as to the plaintiff's suit and as to the plaintiff's appeal to the Court below and involves a question of res judicata as to the defendant's cross-objections in the Court below it will be necessary to set ''out the material facts and dates in some detail. The oontract, of which specific performance is sought, was made on 1st April 1915. By it the defendant-appellant Parbhu Dayal agreed to sell to his nephew the plaintiff Murli Dhar one-fourth of a house whenever the plaintiff should pay him the sum of Rs. 200. Shortly after this, the defendant mortgaged' the house to a third party and I am informed that the mortgagee has filed a suit on his mortgage and has obtained a decree. On 4th November 1921 the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance alleging that, on 21st September, he had tendered the sum of Rs. 200 t...
Sanmukh Pande and anr. Vs. Jagarnath Pande and ors. and Ram Saran Pand ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.838
1. Second-Appeal No. 1 of 1922 and Second Appeal No. 2 of 1922 arise out of two independent suits Nos. 416 and 440 of 1920 respectively which were suits brought by Hindu sons to set aside a deed of sale dated the 4th September 1905 and the 28th of June 1912 in the second case. In these second appeals we are not now concerned with the mortgage-deed of the 28th of June 1912.2. As regards the sale-deed both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that out of the consideration of Rs. 1,000 for which it was executed by the plaintiffs' father Rs. 500 were paid in order to pay off the amount due on a previous usufructuary mortgage-deed which has been held not to be an antecedent debt, and out of the balance of Rs. 500, Rs. 200 have not been proved to have been paid as recited in the deed.3. We may say at once that the view that the amount due on the previous mortgage-deed was not a good antecedent debt cannot now be upheld in view of the opinion recently pronounced by their Lordships of ...
Lakhan Singh Vs. Lal Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All205
Daniels, J.1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies. The amount in dispute in the case was Rs. 252-10, only, and the plaintiff asked for nothing more than a. simple money decree. It is true that the-bond on which his claim was based was a hypothecation bond, but he expressly abandoned all claim against the mortgaged property and framed his suit purely as a money suit. Under these circumstances Section 102, Civil P.C., applies and no-second appeal lies. The appellant pleads that the suit should be treated as falling under Articles 6 or 11 of the second-Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause-Courts Act. Neither of these articles is-applicable, Article 6 applies to suits for sale or foreclosure and to suits for redemption but to no other kinds of suit. Article-11 applies only to suits for the enforcement of a right to or interest in immovable property. No such right is sought-to be enforced in this case. The ruling in Suhhdeo Prasad v. Lachman Singh (190...
Muneshar Lal and ors. Vs. Amar Nath Alias Chhotey Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All493; 78Ind.Cas.626
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit in which the plaintiffs sought to recover possession of the property sold by their father Sham Lal, defendant No. 9, to Mst. Phul Kuwari in 1902 for a sum of Rs. 1,455. It is stated in the judgment of the trial Court that the vendee was the wife of Sham Lal's own cousin. The property was joint family property and the plaintiff's case was that the sale was executed without legal necessity. The sale was the subject of a pre-emption suit and the defendantsiare transferees from the successful pre-emptor. The pre-emption suit was decreed on payment of the full sale price. The sale in dispute was for cash paid in presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution of the deed to the extent of Rs. 1,301. The remainder of the consideration was left with the vendee for payment of three prior debts, Rs.1. A mortgage-debt due to Raghubar Dayal 202. Another Mortgage 203. To pay off a pro-note due to Ganga Parsad 1092. The trial Cou...
Gobind Vs. Ammar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All194a
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a case in which the plaintiffs asked for and have been given a declaration that they are joint tenants with him in a certain occupancy holding. The only plea pressed at the hearing of the appeal is that the suit is barred by Section 167 of the Agra Tenancy Act. The facts are these; The defendant alleging that the plaintiffs were his sub-tenants sued them in the Revenue Court for arrears of rent and obtained an ex-parte decree against them. While this ex-parte decree was in force the present suit for a declaration was filed. The defendant pleaded in his written statement that the suit had been instituted on account of the claim for arrears of rent which he had brought against the plaintiffs. It appears from the Munsif's judgment that when the present suit was decided in the trial Court an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree had been preferred and was spending. That application was afterwards allowed and the learned Distri...
Mubarak HusaIn Vs. Ahmad
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All489
Walsh, J.1. Two questions are involved in this reference, The first is, whether the exemptions from attachment and sale in execution of a decree, contained in the proviso to Section 60 of the Code, apply to a mortgagee's decree for sale.2. I have had the advantage of studying the judgments of my two brothers. They fully cover the ground and it is not necessary to do so again. They differ fundamentally, and each judgment appears on the face of it to be unanswerable.3. On the one hand, the section distinctly prohibits the sale of this property in execution of a decree. On the other hand, as Mr. Justice Mukerji's judgment shows, there is much in the section which is inappropriate to a mortgagee's decree for sale.4. Where a section of an Act is capable of two renderings, or is said to mean less or more than it says, it is a maxim of interpretation that one must look at the scope and object of the enactment. For this purpose it is helpful to recall the history.5. The rights of a mortgagor h...
P. Chiraunji Lal Vs. Ganga Sahai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All811; 78Ind.Cas.631
1. This is a seoond appeal in an execution case. The appellant is the decree holder. A petition to execute the decree was filed by him on the 1st of June 1918. That was an application asking the Court to transfer the decree to the Collector as the property was ancestral property. The last application was filed on the 12th August 1921 and it was objected to on the ground that it was, on the face of it, clearly barred by limitation. It is sought by the decree-holder to bring it within limitation on two grounds: (1) It is said that on the 24th September 1918 the decree-holder filed an affidavit in the Court of the Collector to the effect that there were no in cumbrances on the property; (2) The next circumstance is that on the 13th November 1918 the Court after considering the Tahsildar's report and perhaps the affidavit, directed that the property should be sold in one lot. It appears from the order-sheet of the Collector's Court that on the 9th August 1918 the decree-holder was directed...
Ganesha Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All4
1. The appellant Ganesha had been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge of Jhansi of murdering his sister-in-law by striking her on the head with a lump of limestone called potni matti. The facts are clear. There was no previous enmity between the two and the accused clearly had no intention of killing her. A dispute arose over a pumpkin between the accused's wife and the deceased. The deceased 'wanted to take away the whole pumpkin whereas accused's wife only wanted to let her take half. The accused come up while the dispute was going on and broke half the pumpkin. The deceased began to abuse him whereupon the accused picked up the lump of limestone and struck her on the head with it. The result was that her skull was fractured and she died in consequence of the injury. It is perfectly clear that the accused acted on the impulse of the moment and had no intention either of killing the deceased or of fracturing her skull. The case does not come under either...
Gauri Shankar Singh and ors. Vs. Sheonandan Misra and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All543; (1924)ILR46All384
Lindsay, J.1. The material facts to be considered in this case are as follows:On the 8th of October, 1904, Bachu Singh, the defendant No. 2 executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the first defendant Sheo Nandan Misir.2. Admittedly the property which was hypothecated under this document was joint family property.3. On the 22nd of September, 1916, with the object of satisfying the debt which was due under this earlier mortgage, Bachu Singh executed a mortgage with possession in favour of the same mortgagee. It was recited in this deed that the sum of Rs. 12,265 was owing on the earlier mortgage. A further sum of Rs. 400 was recited to have been taken in cash at the time of the execution of the mortgage for necessary expenses and for the completion of the document. The total mortgage debt secured upon this second mortgage was thus a sum of Rs. 12,725.4. The suit out of which this appeal arises has been brought by the son and two grandsons of Bachu Singh for the purpose of avoiding t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »