Allahabad Court February 1925 Judgments
Babu Ram Vs. Banke Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.211
1. The following facts may be stated in order to make the judgment intelligible.2. The appellant obtained a decree for sale which was affirmed on appeal on the 29th of November 1917. When he made an application for a final decree about three years after the passing of the appellate decree, it was discovered that two of the defendants in the suit had died more than 90 days before the making of the application. The Court of first instance declared that the suit had abated. The appellant, thereupon, filed an application to have the abatement set aside. The respondents were heard and an order was made setting aside the abatement. Then followed, in due course, a final decree for sale. Against that final decree for sale, the respondents appealed and the sole ground that they took for challenging the decree was that the Court of first instance was not justified in setting aside the abatement.3. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the Court of first instance should not have set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Banki Behari Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All426
Mukerji, J.1. The following facts may be stated in order to make the judgment intelligible.2. The appellant obtained a decree for sale which was affirmed on appeal on the 29th of November, 1917. When he made an application for a final decree, about three-years after passing of the appellate-decree, it was discovered that two of the defendants in the suit had died more than 90 days before the making of the application. The Court of first instance declared that the suit had abated. The appellant, thereupon, filed an application to have the abatement set aside. The respondents were heard and an order was made setting aside the abatement. Then followed, in duo course, a final decree for sale. Against that final decree for sale, the respondents appealed and the sole ground that they took for challenging the decree was that the Court of first instance was not justified in setting aside the abatement.3. The learned District Judge wag of opinion that the Court of first instance should not have...
Tag this Judgment!Bansidhar Vs. Dulhatia and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All483; 87Ind.Cas.235
Mukerji, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a former decision given against Sheo Mangal, a brother of the plaintiff, operates as res judicata or not.2. The Courts below have held that it does operate as res judicata as regards a portion of the property in suit.3. Briefly the facts are these:4. Ganesh Din was the owner of the property in suit. On his death, a part of the property was recorded as held by his widow although his son, Ram Partab, survived him. After the death of Ram Partab, the property which was recorded in his name, being a portion of his father's property, was recorded in the names of his mother and a predeceased brother's widow. The mother of Ram Partab executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter-in-law and this gave rise to the suit which was brought by Sheo Mangal.4. Sheo Mangal sued as a possible reversioner to the estate and his case was that Mt. Dulhatia, the wife of GaneshDin, was in possession of the property as a Hindu widow and had no right to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Jaideo Prasad and ors. Vs. Ghazi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All646
Lindsay, J.1. On the whole, after hearing the learned Counsel in this case, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the lower appellate Court is correct.2. The question was a question of limitation. It seems that the decree-holder obtained a decree for possession of certain lands and also a decree for costs. On the 3rd of January 1921 he sought out execution of this decree by making an application (1) for delivery of possession and (2) for attachment of certain property for the realization of his costs. On the 18th of January 1921 the decree-holder got delivery of possession by execution of a dakhalnama. On the 22nd January 1921 he was ordered to pay into Court the necessary process-fees for attachment and on that date he paid in a sum of Rs. 3-12.3. It was reported after this that no property of the judgment-debtor was avail-able for attachment and so the application was infructuous. On the 16th January 1924 the decree-holder again applied for attachment of property in orde...
Tag this Judgment!Shiam Lal and ors. Vs. Mool Chand
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All672; 87Ind.Cas.177
Mukerji, J.1. The plaintiffs' suit has failed in the Courts below inter alia on the ground of limitation.2. It appears that a decree was obtained against the plaintiff-appellants' father by one Ram Prasad. In execution of that decree the property in suit was attached and sold. Before the attachment the father had died and his sons, the appellants, were brought on the record with the Nazir as their guardian for the suit. Over 12 years after the sale of the property, and just within 12 years of the delivery of possession, the appellants brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to have the sale set aside and to recover possession, on the ground that they were not properly represented in the execution proceedings, and that the property could not be sold because the father having died as a joint member of a Hindu family it had become the sole property of the appellants.3. The Court of first instance found that the debt was one which was binding on the plaintiffs. It found that t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaideo Prasad and ors. Vs. Ghasi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.745
Lindsay, J.1. On the whole, after hearing the learned Counsel in this case, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct.2. The question was a question of limitation. It seems that the decree-holder obtained a decree for possession of certain lands and also a decree for costs. On the 3rd of January 1921 he sought out execution of this decree by making an application (1) for delivery of possession; and (2) for attachment of certain property for the realization of his costs. On the 18th of January 1921 the decree-holder got delivery of possession by execution of a dakhalnama. On the 22nd January 1921 he was ordered to pay into Court the necessary process fees for attachment and on that date he paid in a sum of Rs. 3-12.3. It was reported after this that no property of the judgment-debtor was available for attachment and so the application was infructuous; On the 16th January 1924 the decree-holder again applied for attachment of property in orde...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Charan Sahu Vs. Salik Ram Sahu
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All662
Mukerji, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings under the following circumstances.2. An Insolvency Court, namely, the District Judge of Gorakhpur, passed a decree against the appellant Ram Charan Bahu in order that some money, belonging to the judgment-debtor which he had realized, he might replay. That decree having been passed, the receiver, Babu Raghubar Prasad, transferred the decree to the opposite party, Salik Ram. Salik Ram, having obtained an assignment applied for execution and obtained an order of transfer of the decree to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh. In that Court, for the first time, Ram Charan Sahu raised the objection that the decree that had been passed by the Insolvency Court was a nullity. That objection having failed, he preferred an appeal to the District Judge.3. The District Judge held that the Court which passed the decree had recognized the title of Salik Ram to execute the decree and that it was not open to the Court at Azamgarh ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhai Vs. Amrit
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All499; 87Ind.Cas.162
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision against a judgment of a Court of Small causes under the following circumstances:The applicant was the plaintiff in the Court below. He held an instalment bond by which he was to receive from the respondent a sum of Rs. 11 every year for eight; years. There was a stipulation in the bond by which the obligor agreed that in case of any default in the payment of any instalment, he would pay the entire amount due on the bond irrespective of the instalments. None of the instalments wore paid. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that his claim with respect to three of the instalments was barred by time, that ho did not want to sue for the entire sum duo and thus, leaving out the last two instalments, he sued for three which, according to him, fell due within three years of the institution of the suit.2. The respondent met the claim with a plea of limitation. The learned Judge of the Court below held that the suit was time-barred, there being no ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Begg Sutherland and Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All535
Walsh, J.1. This is a reference, or a case stated, under Section 66 of the Indian Income Tax Act of 1922 by the Commissioner of Income tax for the opinion of the High Court. The facts are very clearly stated in the case and are as follows:The business of the well known firm of Begg Sutherland and Co., Cawnpore, was carried on by a firm which consisted of certain individual partners under the title of Messrs. Begg Sutherland and Coup to the 30th of April, 1922. On that date that firm, as a commercial or legal person, ceased to exist, and was succeeded by a private limited company which was known by the same name with the addition of the word 'limited.' The agreement is not exhibited, but the point taken at one time on behalf of the Company by one of its representatives before the Commissioner, that the Company, was not the successor of the firm within the meaning of Section 26 of the Income Tax Act has not been argued by Mr. J.M. Banerji on behalf of the Company, and therefore it must b...
Tag this Judgment!Rajai Singh and ors. Vs. Randhir Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All643; 87Ind.Cas.30
Mears, C.J.1. On the 20th of April 1897, Randhir Singh, being then an occupancy tenant of a holding, mortgaged it usufructuarily by two documents of that date receiving Bs. 200, or its equivalent in value, in respect of one mortgage and Its. 500 in respect of the other. The mortgage for Rs. 200 was not to be redeemable for 95 years, the mortgage for Rs. 500 was not to be redeemable for 96 years, and to that there was added a stipulation that, inasmuch as the usufructuary return was not sufficient to give the proper amount of interest on the outstanding money there should, at the expiration of the 96 years, be paid with the principal sum, interest at the rata of four annas pen cent, per mensem. A similar provision is to be found in the second deed. The figures of liability for interest at the end of 95 and 96 years which have been given to us are not disputed and amount to Rs. 1,940 and Rs. 485. The position therefore on the 20th of April, 1897, was that the mortgagor bound himself not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »