Allahabad Court July 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.
Ram Sarup, Radha Kishan Vs. Har Prasad and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All922
Daniels and Neave, JJ.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the defendants are entitled to claim a set-off under Order VIII, Rule 6, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The courts below have declined to go into the merits of the set-off claimed on the ground that the sum claimed is not an ascertained sum and, therefore, does-not fall within the provision? of the rule. In the courts below the question of equitable setoff was also discussed, but in this Court the argument has been confined to the legal set-off provided by Rule 6. The suit was one for the balance of the price of castor seed sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defence, so far as we are now concerned with it, substantially was that this transaction formed one of a number of transactions between the parties in which there were payments to be credited on both sides and that on these other transactions on the date of suit, a definite sum, of Rs. 1,126 was due to the defendants from the plaintiff. There were also ...
Kirtarth Gir Vs. Mathura Prasad Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR46All924
Mukerji and Dalal, JJ.1. The judgment-debtor in this case is a permanent lessee or thekadar paying a certain rent to the zamindar. In the execution department in execution of a decree passed against him the learned Subordinate Judge has. appointed a receiver to collect rents recoverable by the thekadar from occupancy and non-occupancy tenants. He has come here in appeal in consequence. It was argued on his behalf that he was in the position of a non-occupancy tenant and his interest in the holding cannot be transferred except by way of lease of one year.2. It was contended that the order of the lower court amounted to a transfer of the interest of a thekadar and was, therefore, invalid under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Agra Tenancy Act. Reference was also made to Order XL, Rule 1, for the appointment of a receiver where a court is given power to order the removal of any person from the possession or custody of the property. The inference sought to be drawn was that the prope...
Harprasad and anr. Vs. Firm Ram Sarup Radha Kishen
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All872; 82Ind.Cas.340
1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the defendants are entitled to claim a set-off under 0 VIII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Courts below have declined to go into the merits of the set-off claimed on the ground that the sum claimed is not an ascertained sum and, therefore, does not fall within the provisions of the rule. In the Courts below the question of equitable set-off was also discussed, but in this Court the argument has been confined to the legal set-off provided by Rule 6. The suit was one for the balance of the price of castor seed sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The defence, so far as we are now concerned with it, substantially was that this transaction formed one of the number of transactions between the parties in which there were payments to be credited on both sides and that on these other transactions on the date of suit a definite sum of Rs. 1126 was due to the defendants from the plaintiff. There were also certain minor ascertained s...
Musammat Raj Roop Kuar Vs. Kandhya and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924All785; 82Ind.Cas.238
Cecil Henry Walsh, Actg., C.J.1. This is one of those really difficult cases where this constant conflict between the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court indirectly arises. I say indirectly arises, because no objection way taken to the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and until this case reached the High Court, and my brother Stuart allowed the learned Vakil to argue a point which was not open to him, the difficulty was never present in the case at all. It is hoped that the approaching legislation about the Tenancy Act, or the new Act, if we ever get one, will finally get rid of this perennial difficulty. The facts of the case are quite simple as appears from my brother Stuart's judgment. It is true that a perpetual lease having been granted by a Hindu widow with a Hindu widow's estate, such questions as legal necessity, and determining her right to grant it, so as to make it operative after her death, are involved. The plaintiff sued in ejectmen...
Babu Dwarka Das Vs. Maulvi Muhammad Ashfaqullah
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jul-01-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.722
Dalal, J.1. The Kayastha Bank had a decree agamst Ashfaqullah. Babu Dwarka Das applied for execution on 2nd November 1918 for the first time on the ground that, the decree had been transferred to him by the Manager of the Bank acting on behalf of the Bank on 6th September 1918. On 3rd February 1919 DwarkaDas's name was substituted. On 4th February 1919 he applied for execution and this application was struck off. Another application was made on 12th April 1920 with the same result. On 16th June 1920 he applied again and during the pendency of this application Ashfaqullah paid Rs. 400 on 18th January 1921 and at the same time prayed that, the money might not be paid to the decree-holder as he desired to object to the transfer in favour of this decree-holder, Dwarka Das. The execution application, however, was dismissed after part satisfaction without any direction that the money may not be paid to the decree-holder. On 26th October 1922 another application for execution was filed by Dwa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›