Allahabad Court May 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.
Pirthi Nath and anr. Vs. Mt. Kunji Kunwar and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All41
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal against an order setting aside a sale. The appellants are the decree-holders. The decree under execution was obtained by Seth Prem Narain on the basis of a mortgage on 13th March 1918. The respondent, Mt. Kunji Kunwar, had a mortgage on certain of the properties in suit. It was provided in the decree that those properties in which she was interested should be sold after the remaining properties. No detail of the properties referred to was given in the decree. Mt. Kunji Kunwar had however brought a suit on the basis of her own mortgage, and shortly afterwards, namely, on 29th May 1918, she obtained a decree. That decree was in respect of five properties, and the two properties now in dispute, namely, Shampur and Karimpur alias Dhakur, were not included in it. There was an appeal to the High Court, but in the appellate decree the same properties were specified. On 19th May 1922, after the decision of the appeal, Prem Narain applied for execution of his dec...
Mahomed Mazhar Ali Vs. Mt. Bijja Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All652
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings. In 1889 Mt. Kundan, who owned certain properties and was entitled to a pension from Government, executed a usufructuary mortgage of all these properties including the pension in favour of certain mortgagees. She took possession of the properties under a lease from the mortgagees, and for the due payment of rent she executed another mortgage-deed by way of security in which that pension was again included. The previous mortgage-deed was paid off; but a suit was brought on the basis of the second one and a decree obtained against the representatives of the mortgagor. Mazhar Ali was a purchaser of part of the mortgaged properties, and so was the respondent Bijja Begum. It appears that Mazhar Ali had to pay more than his due share in order to save his property from being sold, and having done so instituted a suit for contribution against Bijja Begam and certain other judgment-debtors. In this suit...
Mt. Saliman and anr. Vs. Abdul Aziz and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All777
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision from an order granting review of judgment. The facts of the case are as follows : The application was originally presented to the Munsif as an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was allowed. The application was presented immediately after the decision of the case. The Munsif informed the vakil of the present applicants of the application but he said that as his clients had gone away he could not make any submission with regard to it. The application was, however, as already stated, allowed and the decree modified. The defendants went in appeal to the District Judge. The District Judge considered that the application was not really one under Section 151 but was in substance an application for review of judgment. He directed that it should be treated as an application for review of judgment, and sent it back to the trial Court for decision according to law. The matter was then heard in presence of both parties...
Mohammad Mazhar Ali Vs. Musammat Biggha Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-06-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.364
1. This is a decree holder's appeal arising out of certain; execution proceedings. In 1889 Musammat Kundan who owned certain properties and was: entitled to a pension from Government, executed a usufructuary mortgage of all these properties including the pension in favour of certain mortgagees. She took possession of the properties under a lease from the mortgagees and for the due payment of rent she executed another mortgage-deed by way of security in which that pension was again included. The previous mortgage-deed was paid off but a suit was brought on the basis of the second, one and a decree obtained against the representatives of the mortgagor. Mazhar All was a purchaser of part of the mortgaged properties, and so was the respondent Biggha Begam. It appears that Mazhar Ali had to pay more than his due share in order to save his property from being sold, and having done so instituted a suit, for contribution against Biggha Begam and certain other judgment-debtors. In this suit he ...
Madhori Saran Vs. Parbati
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All552
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal from an order granting a review of judgment on the ground of due discovery of new and important evidence which the defendant could not by exercise of due diligence have discovered earlier. The new and important evidence consisted of a certified copy of a sale-dead of the year, 1878 alleged to relate to the land in suit the question arises whether the appeal comas within the terms of Order 47, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Coda the right of appeal conferred by Order 43, Rule 1(w) is not an unlimited right, but is subject to the conditions of Order 47, Rule 7; Vide Khurshed Alam Khan v. Rahmatullah Khan (1917) 40 All. 68 and Nandlal Mullik v. Panohanan Mukerjee (1918) 45 484. In this case the appeal, if allowable at all, comes under Clause (b) of Section 7 of Order 47 on the ground that the review was admitted in contravention of Rule 4. Now, the learned pleader for the Appellants has not been able to dispute the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge th...
Durga Ram Vs. Har Kishen Dass
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All564
Daniels, J.1. This is an appeal from an order declaring the appellant, Durga Ram an insolvent on the application of the respondent, Har Kishan Das, to whom he is indebted. It is difficult to know exactly on what grounds the learned Judge has granted the petition. The acts of insolvency alleged in the creditor's petition' were, first, that the insolvent was removing his property in order to avoid paying; his creditors, and, secondly, that he did' not sit at his shop and was about to go to Calcutta. The learned Judge finds neither of these allegations to be proved. As regards the absence, he says that all that is proved is that the appellant was absent from his village for about two or three hours on one occasion when the munim of the shop went to collect the debt. This-is not sufficient to constitute an act of insolvency within the meaning of Clause (d)(ii) of Section 6. The grounds on which the learned Judge seems to have proceeded are that the defendant, who is a cloth dealer, has bee...
Ramcharan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All544
Banerji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the District Judge of Mainpuri directing the appellant to be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain false statements. The first point to consider in this case is what are the duties of an appellate Court in cases in which an order is made by the lower Court directing the prosecution of any one. Section 476-B has been enacted by Act 18 of 1923, and the same Act has omitted original Sub-section 6 of Section 195, which gave the appellate Court power of reviewing an order granting sanction, or an order by a Court instituting a complaint. Chapter 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the ordinary procedure and powers relating to appeals against convictions or acquittals. Section 476-B empowers the appellate Court in appeal to direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or in oases where the first Court has refused to complain, may itself make a ...
Ganesh Prasad Vs. Bhagelu Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All773; 89Ind.Cas.350
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order restoring an application for restoration dismissed for default. I need express no opinion as to whether a revision lies, because we consider that in any case the application fails on the merits but I may note that in Sheik Kallu v. Nadir Baksh A.I.R. 1922 All. 441 a Bench of this Court held that no revision lay against an order restoring the case, be-cause the order was not a final order. The suit had been dismissed for default. The plaintiffs applied to have it restored. That application was also dismissed for default. They then presented an application to the effect that they had been prevented from attending on the date fixed and asked for their restoration application to be restored. It was restored on payment of Rs. 5 costs to the opposite party. The defendant in revision contends that if such an application has boon dismissed ex-parte more than thirty days after the date of the decree, the plaintiff's are left with...
Ram Charan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.358
Benerji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Cr. P.C. against an order of the District Judge of Mainpuri directing the appellant to be prosecuted under Section 193, of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain false statements. The first point to consider in this case is what are the duties of an Appellate Court in cases in which an order is made by the lower Court directing the prosecution of any one. Section 476-13has been enacted by Act XVIII of 1923, and the same Act has omitted original Sub-section 6 of Section 195, which gave the Appellate court power of reviewing an order granting sanction or an order by a Court instituting a complaint. Chapter XXXI of the Cr. P.C. lays down the ordinary procedure and powers relating to appeals against convictions or acquittals. Section 476 B empowers the Appellate Court in appeal to direct the withdrawal of the complaint, or in cases where the First Court has refused to complain may itself make a complaint. I am of opinion that ...
Kishun Ahir and ors. Vs. Saran Ahir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All553
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. We think the decision of the lower Court in this case is correct. It is a case to which the Preemption Act XI of 1922 applies. It appears that in the 1874 Settlement the village in which the property is situated formed part of a taluqa comprising a number of villages. It is true that a wajib-ul-arz was prepared at that Settlement in which it was stated that there was a custom of pre-emption, but there was also produced before the Court below a certified copy of a rubkar dated the 30th September, 1874, declaring that the entry relating to custom in this wajib-ul-arz was to be deemed to be incorrect as far as this mauza Jalalpur was concerned. It was stated clearly in this rubhar that there was in that village no custom of pre emption and that there would be no such custom in future.2. We are of opinion that the Judge of the Court below construed Section 5 of the Preemption Act correctly. The wajib-ul-arz cannot be read detached from the rubhar which professes to corre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »