Allahabad Court November 1925 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.
Batuk Nath Vs. Jugal Kishore and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All285; 92Ind.Cas.551
Mukerji, J.1. This revision raised a question of law on which there does not appear to be any direct authority. The matter is not, it further appears, covered by any direct rule of procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts are these: One Pancha was indebted to one Jugal Kishore. Panoha having died Jugal Kishore brought a suit to recover his money against Pancha's widow Mt. Kota. When decree was passed, the widow was pregnant and she gave birth to a child, the petitioner before me, a few months later. The decree-holder sought to execute his decree against the widow and obtained an attachment of certain properties. Pancha's brother Sancha for himself and as the guardian of his nephew, the petitioner Batuk Nath, preferred an objection apparently under Order 21, Rule 68, of the Civil Procedure Code and it succeeded. The decree-holder brought a suit under Rule 63, Order 21, Civil P, C., and this suit was dismissed for default. His appeal was still pending before the Distr...
Puncham Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All294
Mukerji, J.1. I do not think I should interfere in this case in revision. Certain minors brought a suit for recovery of a certain property on the strength of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by their mother, who is said to be still alive, in their favour. The deed of gift was a registered document. But the learned Munsif returned it because a marginal witness had not been called to prove it. The executant of the deed was a Muhammadan and the registration was enough to give it validity. The document had bean proved otherwise than by the examination of a marginal witness. A further question was whether the father, who executed the document on behalf of his wife, had an authority. There was a mutation of names in favour of the minors. It was really a question of technicality on which the suit of the plaintiffs failed because the power of attorney had not been filed. In the circumstances I am not in a position to say that the Judge in allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw their s...
Debi Bakhsh Vs. Shambhu Dial and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All384; 94Ind.Cas.877
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an execution proceeding. A curious point of law arises in this case owing to a mistake made by the Court of first instance when passing the decree.2. The suit was instituted against three persons whose names were mentioned in the plaint in a certain order. The learned Munsif, when writing his judgment, altered the serial numbers of the defendants, and although apparently he intended to pass a decree against the appellant Debi Bakhsh, the decree was passed against Bhawani Shanker on the 16th of January 1916, The plaintiff, armed with this decree against Bhawani Shanker, proceeded to execute it. Applications for execution were filed against Bhawani Shanker on the 23rd of July 1919, on the 13th of July 1922 and on the 26th of February 1923. With regard this last application it may be mentioned that originally the names of all the three defendants ware included in to this application; but when objections were raised by person...
Mt. Bittee Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Misir
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All510; 94Ind.Cas.869
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. In 1913 a final decree for partition was passed in favour of Sheo Shanker the vendor of the contesting respondent. Applications for execution were made by Sheo Shanker in 1914 and in subsequent years, but no delivery of possession could he made. On the 2nd October 1916 Sheo Shanker executed a sale-deed in favour of the present respondent. On the strength of this sale deed Sheo Shanker's vendee filed an application for execution on the 9th of January 1918. Notice was ordered to be issued on this application and was served on the judgment-debtor, Mt. Bittee. On the 10th of May 1918 she filed objections to the execution. She did not plead that the application of the 9th of January 1918 was in any way barred by time, nor did she plead that Kanhaiya Lal Misir was not a transferee of the decree and was not entitled to execute it. The only objection which she raised was that he could not execute th...
Banwari Lal Vs. Shalimar Paints, Colour and Varnish Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All554; 94Ind.Cas.790
Mukherji, J.1. This is an application in revision against a decree of a learned Munsif exercising the powers of a Judge, Small Cause Court at Pilibhit.2. It appears that the applicant who was the plaintiff in the Court below ordered the defendants respondents, a limited Company trading in Calcutta, to send him some paint 'per goods train at a cheaper rate.' The defendants insisted on payment of a portion of the price beforehand and, according to the plaintiff's case, the money was sent to them on the 29th of April 1924. Goods, alleged to correspond to the goods ordered, were consigned at the Railway Station at Howrah on the 9th of May 1924. The railway receipt which was in favour of the defendants themselves was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The goods arrived, it is said, rather late (we do not know the exact date) and the plaintiff refused to take delivery of the same on the ground that it reached too late to be of use to him. The plaintiff thereupon brought the suit for recove...
Ata HusaIn Vs. Mustafa HusaIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All657
Mukherji J.1. Two points of law have been raised in this appeal and a third point, also of law, has been argued with the permission of the Court.2. It appears that Mt. Amrit Bibi, the Respondent 2, brought a suit for recovery of her alleged dower-debt from the decree-holder, Respondent 1, Mustafa Husain, who was in possession of some of the property of the late husband of Mt. Amrit Bibi, as heir to his wife, the daughter of Mt. Amrit Bibi's husband. While the suit was pending, Mustafa Husain obtained an order from the Court to the effect that the plaintiff Mt. Amrit Bibi must furnish security for his costs. This security was furnished by the appellant Ata Husain. He gave a bond hypothecating a certain property on the 25th April 1922. The suit was decided against Mt. Amrit Bibi and Mustafa Husain has taken out execution for costs. He applied for the sale of the property hypothecated by Ata Husain and also he applied for the attachment and sale of certain other property said to belong to...
Pancham Lal and ors. Vs. Muhammad Yaqub Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.558
Mukerji, J.1. I do not think I should interfere in this case in revision. Certain minors brought a suit for recovery of a certain property on the strength of a deed of gift alleged to have been executed by their mother; who is said to be still alive, in their favour. The deed of gift was a registered document. But the learned Munsif returned it because a marginal witness had not been called to prove it. The executant of the deed was a Muhammaden and the registration was enough to give it validity. The document had been proved otherwise than by the examination of a marginal witness. A further question was whether the father who executed the document on behalf of his wife had an authority. There was a mutation of names in favour of the minors. It was really a question of technicality on which the suit of the plaintiffs failed because the power of attorney had not been filed. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to say-that the Judge, in allowing the plaintiffs to withdraw their s...
Sheikh Ata HusaIn Vs. Syed Mustafa HusaIn and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.546
Mukerji, J.1. Two points of law have been raised in this appeal and a third point, also of law, has been argued with the permission of the Court.2. It appears that Musammat Amrit Bibi, the respondent No. 2, brought a suit for recovery of her alleged dower-debt from the decree-holder, respondent No. 1, Mustafa Husain, who was in possession of some of the property of the late husband of Musammat Amrit Bibi, as an heir to his wife, the daughter of Musammat Amrit Bibi's husband. While the suit was pending, Mustafa Husain obtained an order from the Court to the effect that the plaintiff Musammat Amrit Bibi must furnish security for his costs. This security was furnished by the appellant Ata Husain. He gave a bond hypothecating a certain property, on the 25th of April 1922. The suit was decided against Musammat Amrit Bibi and Mustafa Husain has taken out execution for costs, He applied for the sale of the property hypothecated by Ata Husain and also he applied for the attachment and sale of ...
Radha Kishun and ors. Vs. Kashi Nath
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All266
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for closing of certain windows and other reliefs and has been directed against an order of remand.2. It appears that when the case came before the Court for trial, the parties agreed that it should be decided according to the evidence of one Babu Anand Prasad. Babu Anand Prasad was accordingly examined as a referee with the consent of the parties and he made certain statements. The learned Munsif was of opinion that the evidence given by Babu Anand Prasad covered the whole controversy between the parties and would justify a disposal of all the issues raised. He accordingly partially decreed the suit and partially dismissed it. The parties appealed and both the appeals were disposed of by a single judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Judge was of opinion that the statement of Babu Anand Prasad was not sufficient for the disposal of the case and he remanded the suit to the Court of first instance for disposal. He directed t...
Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Ram Chandra (Vendee) and Another (Receiver)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All289
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal against the Receiver from an order refusing to annul the appellant's adjudication. Muhammad Ibrahim was adjudged insolvent on 24th April 1919 and his property vested in the Official Receiver. On 13th February 1922 the Receiver entered into a contract for sale of a certain house with Ram Chandra for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and received Rs. 500 as earnest money. When he proceeded to sell this property, an objection was filed by the insolvent's wife claiming this house as her own property. Protracted proceedings followed and ultimately on 29th January 1924 the High Court decided against the wife Rashida Khatun. A subsequent application for review also proved infructuous. On 3rd July 1924 the insolvent filed an application purporting to be under Section 38, Insolvency Act, setting forth a composition scheme. In this he stated that he was able to procure money from his relations and would pay up all the debts that were entered in the schedule. It appears that his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »