Allahabad Court February 1926 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.
Abdul Jabbar and anr. Vs. Sita Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All379; 95Ind.Cas.1033
Kanhaiya Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding instituted by an attaching creditor to enforce the liability of an action-purchaser under Order 21, Rule 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that Gopi Ram and others obtained a decree from the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta against Janki Ram and others, which was transferred for execution to the Court of the Munsif of Rasra. In execution of that decree a house was attached as the property of the judgment-debtors and put up to sale on the 17th June 1917. The highest bidder was Sita Ram whose bid amounted to Rs. 5.060, but as he failed to deposit 25% of the sale price the sale officer proceeded to re-sell the property. As the time had advanced he held the resale next day. The property was then purchased by one Gauri Shankar for Rs. 2,850, leaving a deficiency of Rupees 2,210 to be recovered from the previous auction-purchaser. The amin reported that deficiency, as required by Order 21, Rule 71 of the Code o...
Hakim Mohammad Ilyas Vs. Hari Ram and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.826
Daniels, J.1. This is an application in revision against art order of the Small Cause Court returning a plaint under Section 23 of the 1 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to be presented on the regular side on the ground that the case depends upon the plaintiff's title to immoveable property. The applicant urges that the defendant was estopped from disputing the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, that no question of title had to be decided in the suit and Section 23 did not apply. It is an admitted fact that the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a document specifically stating that he has taken the house from him on a rent of Rs. 20 a month from a certain date. This on the face of it creates a tenancy and gives rise to the estoppel. The defendant tries to get out of this in all sorts of ways as by alleging that he had previously taken the house from the plaintiff's brother, who is at loggerheads with the plaintiff, and that he merely exe...
Ballabha Das Vs. Murat NaraIn Singh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1926All432; 95Ind.Cas.1048
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a decree-holder's appeal arising out of an execution matter. On the 18th February 1875 one Sitaram granted a permanent lease of an entire village in favour of one Kalka Prasad Singh. The heirs of Kalika Prasad Singh, in the years 1915 and 1916, made two mortgages of the whole of this village in favour of Seth Ballabha Das. The mortgagee brought a suit for sale on the basis of the mortgage-deeds. No written statement was put in and the mortgagors did not contest the claim on the ground that the property mortgaged was not transferable. As ex-parte decree was passed which has been put in execution. The judgment-debtors have now raised the objection that their interest in the property is not transferable inasmuch as they are thekadars and therefore not occupancy tenants within the meaning of the Agra Tenancy Act. This objection has found favour with the Courts below and the application for execution has been disallowed. The decree-holder has come up in appeal and sev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›