Allahabad Court May 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.
Akram Hasan and anr. Vs. Abdul Ghafur Khan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All741
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. The question in this appeal is whether a private sale in favour of the plaintiffs should prevail against an auction-sale made under execution proceedings in which the property was attached prior to the sale to the plaintiffs. The trial court held that the sale to the plaintiffs was invalid. The lower appellate court has held that it was valid on the ground that it is not proved that the prior attachment was carried out in accordance with the law. The defendant has filed this second appeal to this Court. The sale to the plaintiff took place on the 20th of June, 1916. Some time previous to this, one Musammat Parbati Kunwar had obtained a decree against the owner of the property, and, on the 25th of April, 1916, she obtained an attachment of the property by means of a prohibitory order under Order XXI, Rule 54, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In continuation of that attachment the property was brought to sale and a 6 anna share was actually sold to the defendant o...
Chet Ram Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All678; (1924)ILR46All717; 82Ind.Cas.251
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal under the Letters Patent from a decree of a learned Judge of this Court setting aside the decree of the lower appellate court and dismissing the suit in toto.2. The plaintiff's allegations were that the plots in suit were the tenancies of one Ghisa deceased. The plaintiff alleged himself to be an heir of Ghisa and as having been in joint cultivation with him over these plots. It was stated that on the 4th of February, 1919, the lambardar had recognized the plaintiff as the tenant of these plots and had indeed attested this fact before the kanungo; that the plaintiff was in possession of these fields by cultivation in the year 1326 Fash, that in kharif 1327 Fasli he actually sowed some crops, but that in March, 1920, the defendants wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff by cutting the standing crops. It is necessary to enumerate the reliefs which were claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. They are as follows:(1) Rs. 100 as t...
Syed Munawar HusaIn Vs. YasIn Bibi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All743
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. We are of opinion that no question of law arises in this appeal. In order to support the argument of the learned vakil on the point of law which he submitted to us, it is necessary for his case that presentation should have been made at the office of the Sub- , Registrar. Then the point would have arisen. If presentation had been made at the office of the Sub-Registrar, it would have followed that it had been made by somebody under a power of attorney which was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But the difficulty of considering that question of law in this particular case is that the learned Judge has definitely held that the act of the husband in going to the Sub-Registrar and handing over the deed and asking him to go to the house of the pardanashin lady to have it executed, was not presentation. He has found as a fact that the presentation did not take place until the Sub-Registrar went to the house of the lady. It is ...
HusaIn Bhai and anr. Vs. Beltie Shah Gilani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All808; (1924)ILR46All733
Daniels, J.1. The order against which this first appeal is preferred is an order staying execution of a decree from the 23rd of July, 1923, to the 6th of September, 1923, on payment of Rs. 5,000 by the judgment-debtor. The period to which the order relates having long since expired, the appeal has really become superfluous, but the appellant decree-holder desires a decision on it because he contends that the court below had no power to stay execution and because four successive orders of stay for limited periods were passed by the same Subordinate Judge, in each case on payment of Rs. 5,000. The amount of the decree was Rs. 74,558 and it was passed on the 28th of March, 1922. The judgment-debtor contended that the decree-holder owed him money in Bombay and he asked for stay in order either to file a suit or to institute arbitration proceedings under an arbitration agreement for the recovery of this amount.2. The respondent takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies, as the order...
HusaIn Bhai and anr. Vs. T. Beltie Shah Gilani
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1035
Daniels, J.1. The order against which this first appeal is preferred is an order staying execution of a decree from 23rd July 1923 to 6th September 1923 on payment of Rs. 5,000 by the judgment-debtor. The period to which the order relates having long since expired, the appeal has really become superfluous but the appellant decree-holder desires a decision on it because he contends that the Court below had no power to stay execution and because four successive orders of stay for limited periods were passed by the same Subordinate Judge in each case on payment of Rs. 5,000. The amount of the decree was Rs. 74,558 and it was passed on 28th of March 1922. The judgment-debtor contended that the decree-holder owed him money in Bombay and he asked for stay in order either to file a suit or to institute arbitration proceedings under an arbitration agreement for the recovery of this ' amount. The respondent takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies as the order complained of does not am...
Muhammad Abdul Gafoor Khan Vs. Syed Akram Hasan and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All747; 83Ind.Cas.878
1. The question in this appeal is whether a private sale in favour of the plaintiffs should prevail against an auction-sale made under execution proceedings in which the property was attached prior to the sale to the plaintiffs. The Trial Court held that the sale to the plaintiffs was invalid. The lower Appellate Court has held that it was valid on the ground that it is not proved that the prior attachment was carried out in accordance with the law. The defendant has filed this second appeal to this Court. The sale to the plaintiff took place on 20th June 1916. Sometime previous to this, one Musammat Parbati Kuar had obtained a decree against the owner of the property, and, on 25th April 1916, she obtained an attachment of the property by means of prohibitory order under Order XXI, Rule 54, of the Civil Procedure Code. In continuation of that attachment the property was brought to sale and a six annas share was actually sold to the defendants on 22nd August 1916, about two months after...
YasIn Bibi and ors. Vs. Syed Munawar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-08-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.345
1. We are of opinion that no question of law arises in this appeal. In order to support the argument of the learned Vakil on the point of law which he submitted to us, it is necessary for his case that presentation should have been made at the office of the Sub-Registrar. Then the point would have arisen. If presentation had been made at the office of the Sub-Registrar, it would have followed that it had been made by somebody under a power-of-attorney, which was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But the difficulty of considering that question of law in this particular case, is that the learned Judge has definitely held, that the act of the husband in going to the Sub-Registrar and handing over the deed, and asking him to go to the house of the pardanashin lady to have it registered, was not presentation. He has found as a fact that the presentation did not take place until the Sub-Registrar went to the house of the lady. It is admitted that if that is true...
Chetan Singh and anr. Vs. Sartaj Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All908; (1924)ILR46All709; 79Ind.Cas.1001
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for sale on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed in the year 1908 by three brothers, the first two of whom are defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and the mother and heir of the third is defendant No. 3. The property mortgaged was joint family property. On an application made by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, the defendants Nos. 6 to 10, who are the sons of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the original mortgagors, were added as parties. At the time when they were so added, more than twelve years had elapsed from the date when the mortgage money became payable. On this ground both the courts below have dismissed the entire suit with reference to Order XXXIV, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. In appeal to this Court it is contended, as it was contended in the courts below, that the added defendants are sufficiently represented in the suit by their respective fathers who are admittedly the managing members of th...
Tara Chand and ors. Vs. Jugal Kishore and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All713
Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.1. This case has never been heard. The learned Judge, as a rule, takes great trouble with his cases, but the sooner District Judges in charge of insolvency matters learn that they must get to close quarters with a case and find the necessary facts before they attempt to apply the law the better, because this sort of thing causes a great deal of trouble and waste of time, and it is not sufficient for a Judge to seize hold of a vague clause in the section that for some other sufficient reason' no order ought to be made, unless he makes it clear what that sufficient cause is, and what the surrounding circumstances of the case are. If when the Act is properly administered, the surrounding circumstances of the case are found to be such as to justify an order being made independently of the 'sufficient cause', then the court of appeal has a right to overrule the finding of the learned Judge on the question of sufficient cause even though it is merely a questio...
Himanchal Singh Vs. Jatwar Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All570; (1924)ILR46All710; 80Ind.Cas.16
Sulaiman and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.1. These two appeals are connected and arise out of two suits for pre-emption.2. On the 22nd of February, 1922, before the trial court the plaintiff and the contesting defendants with the pleaders for both parties signed a written statement to the following effect:It has been settled between the parties that Rai Sahib Pandit Gopal Das Sharma, vakil, shall hear out the whole affair and that we shall accept any statement that he may make before the court.3. It is not necessary to refer to the various adjournments in the case, but it may be noted that ultimately the case was under an order of the District Judge transferred from the court of the learned Munsif to that of another officer. Pandit Gopal Das Sharma, vakil, made a statement on oath before this latter court, and the suit was dismissed in accordance with the referee's statement.4. On appeal by the plaintiff to the District Judge that decree has been affirmed.5. On behalf of the plaintiff it is strong...