Allahabad Court June 1925 Judgments
Rai Thakur Kehri Singh Vs. Thirpal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.282
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand passed by the District Judge in an appeal frsom a Revenue Court. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. This objection is well-founded. Under Section 175 of the Agra Tenancy Act no appeal from any decree or order passed by any Court under that Act lies except as therein provided. Under Section 177 an appeal is provided from a decree of a District Judge passed on appeal but no appeal is provided from an order passed by a District Judge. It is, therefore, apparent that no appeal from his order of remand, which, of course, is not a decree lies to this Court. This view is concluded by the decision of the Full Bench case of Zohra v. Mangu Lal 28 A. 753 : 3 A.L.J. 569 : A.W.N. (1906) 223 (P.B.) which has been followed recently in the case of Gulzari Lal v. Latif Husain 35 Ind. Cas. 27 : 38 A. 181 : 14 A.L.J. 84.2. The learned Vakil for the appellant, however, contends that an appeal lies under para. 11 of the Lette...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Vs. Rajdhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925All735
1. The appellant before us is the decree-holder Mulchand. He is represented by Dr. Katju. The respondent Rajdhar is unrepresented. In this case the respondent on the 28th of June, 1913, was declared an insolvent on his own petition. By the adjudication order Mulchand, the present appellant, was given permission to sue and to execute, but this was limited by the condition that the proceeds were to be deposited with the Receiver. In pursuance of this permission, Mulchand obtained a decree on the 18th of February, 1914. Oct the 10th of September, 1914, he was entered in the schedule of creditors under Section 33; but he did not proceed to attempt to execute his decree, and it is indeed difficult to see how he could have proceeded, when the property of the insolvent was wholly vested in the Receivar. To execute the decree against the Receiver, obtain payment of his debt, and then to re-deposit it with the Receiver in pursuance of the conditions laid down in the order would have been a futi...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Tajammul HusaIn Vs. Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All43
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment on the ground that the plaintiff is a zamindar of the village and the contesting defendant is a person who has without any right purchased a house in the village and is occupying it. The pleas raised in the written statement were that the defendant-vendor was the owner of the house and was entitled to transfer it. There was also a further plea that in this village under a custom the occupiers of houses were entitled to transfer their houses.2. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the defendant did not establish a custom having the force of law. They accordingly decreed the claim. On appeal a learned Judge of this Court has come to a contrary conclusion. We may note that there was another suit instituted by other zamindars of this village against other transferees which had however been dismissed by the Courts below. A second appeal was preferred in this Court in that case and at th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshhmi Flour Mills Co.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All101
Mukerjee, J.1. This objection like many others of the same kind, raises the question where mere debtors of a Company in liquidation can be brought on the list of contributories. It appears that the liquidators of the Allahabad Union Bank in liquidation have prayed to this Court that there should be prepared two lists of contributories, one containing the names of defaulting shareholders and the other containing the names of debtors who have contracted loans and are liable to pay money to the Company and, therefore, to the liquidators. The question raised is one of importance and I am told by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides that there is no authority in India directly dealing with the point.2. The word 'contributory' ia defined in Section 158 of the Companies as every person liable to contribute to the assets of a Company in the event of its being wound up, and in all proceedings for determining and in all proceedings prior to the final determination of the persons who are t...
Tag this Judgment!Bir and anr. Vs. Gajadhar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All140
Banerji, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal under the following circumstances: The plaintiff's and the defendants are descended from a common ancestor, Puranmashi. It appears that the parties are joint owners of several occupancy holdings, and with respect to three of them, Nos. 436, 440 and 478 situated in Mauza Meohar in the District of Benares, the plaintiffs' allegation is that many years ago the parties, namely, the plaintiff's or their ancestors on the one side, and the defendants or their ancestors on the other, divided that holding among themselves, and that the plaintiffs' share in the occupancy was as set out in Sch. B and the defendants' as set out in Sch. C; that the plaintiffs had in September 1922, been dispossessed by the defendant; hence the plaintiffs were entitled to be awarded possession as their exclusive cultivatory holding. The defence raised to this claim was that the plaintiffs and defendants were joint and that there had been no partition whatever between the pa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshmi Flour Mills Co. Ld.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: 89Ind.Cas.994
Mukerjee, J.1. This objection like many others of the same kind raises the question whether mere debtors of a Company in liquidation can be brought on the list of contributories.2. It appears that the liquidators of the Allahabad Union Bank in liquidation have prayed to this Court that there should be prepared two lists of contributories, one containing the names of defaulting shareholders and the other containing the names of debtors who have contracted loans and are liable to pay money to the Company and, therefore, to the liquidators. The question raised is one of importance and I am told by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides that there is no authority in India directly dealing with the point.3. The word 'contributory' is defined in Section 158 of the Companies Act as every person liable to contribute to the assets of a Company in the event of its being wound up, and in all proceedings for determining and in all proceedings prior to the final, determination of the persons w...
Tag this Judgment!Seth Mul Chand Vs. Rajdhar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.544
1. The appellant before us is the decree-holder Mulchand. He is represented by Dr. Katju. The respondent Rajdhar is unrepresented. In this case the respondent on the 28th of June 1913, was declared an insolvent on his own petition. By the adjudication order Mulchand, the present appellant, was given permission to sue and to execute, but this was limited by the condition that the proceeds were to be deposited with the Receiver. In pursuance of this permission, Mulchand obtained a decree, on the 18th of February 1914. On the 10th of September 1914, he was entered in the schedule of creditors under Section 33; but he did not proceed to attempt to execute his decree, and it is indeed difficult to see how he could have proceeded, when the property of the insolvent was wholly vested in the Receiver. To execute the decree against the Receiver, obtain payment of his debt, and then to re-deposit it with the Receiver in pursuance of the conditions laid down in the order would have been a futile ...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Browne Vs. H.A. Pearce
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All122a
1. Madam Pearce, a Milliner of Agra, sued Assistant. Surgeon Browne, a member of the Indian Medical Department, for a sum of about Rs. 40. There are no particulars before us to show us the date or the actual amount, but at all events at the time when the judgment-creditor was seeking to recover the money by attachment the sum was then Rs. 46-6-0.2. An application was made to the Small Cause Court Judge asking for the attachment of part of the pay of this Assistant Surgeon. That attachment issued, and when the papers arrived at head-quarters the authorities there refused to recognize the order of the Court, contending that the pay of the Assistant Surgeon was not attachable. Certain correspondence followed, and eventually the Government pleader was instructed to lodge objections to the attachment of the judgment-debtor's pay. Those objections were dated 21st October 1924, and seemed to treat the matter on the basis that this Assistant Surgeon was subject to the provisions of the Indian ...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ram Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All164
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 2 arising out of a suit brought on the basis of a registered deed dated 25th October 1921, executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Under this deed a grove and the sugarcane crops on 10 bighas of land were hypothecated. Defendant 2 was impleaded on the ground that he had taken possession of the crops and crushed them. In the plaint the plaintiff sought no relief against the grove of the mortgagor but stated that a separate suit would be filed later if necessary.2. Defendant 2 denied the allegations of the plaintiff in general but the specific pleas taken by him were that he had not crushed the crops at all and that he was not in law liable to the plaintiff's claim.3. The Court of first instance framed three issues: (1) as to the execution of the bond in suit, (2) as to whether sugarcane crops were pressed at the pressing machine of defendant 2s, and (3) as to the effect of the release of the grove by the plaintiff. It found the e...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Bux Vs. Samuel Fitz and Co. Ltd.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jun-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926All161a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a civil revision from an order passed by the District Judge of Jhansi allowing an appeal in an execution matter and disallowing the judgment-debtor's objection.2. The first point raised is that no appeal lay to the District Judge. This contention, in my opinion, has no force whatsoever. It is not disputed that the decree has been transferred for execution from the Bombay High Court to the Court at Jhansi. This was presumably under Section 39, Civil P.C. An order passed by the Subordinate Judge in execution is not an order passed by a Court of Small Causes from which no appeal lies. A first appeal from his order clearly lay to the District Judge: vide the case of Atwari v. Maiku (1909) 31 All 1. Of course the decree having been passed by a Presidency Court of Small Causes in a case of Small Cause Court nature no second appeal lies even in the execution proceedings.3. The next point urged is that the learned Judge has acted upon evidence which was neither formally ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »