Allahabad Court March 1930 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.
Mt. Srimati Vs. Sahu Nand Kishore
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All826a
Sulaiman, J.1. This is an appeal by a judgment-debtor Mt. Srimati from an order in execution dismissing her objections in execution proceedings arising out of the following facts: As there have been three separate litigations it would be convenient to give the dates of each separately. On 18th February 1904 Khalilurrahman executed a mortgage deed in favour of Kumar Sen, Bansidhar and Jagannath of 5 biswas of Shahpur Bhusauri along with other properties. On 23rd August 1915 a suit to enforce this mortgage was brought by the mortgagees, impleading the representatives of the mortgagor as well as Nand Kishore, the present respondent, as subsequent mortgagee (the latter held a mortgage dated 4th June 1910 to be mentioned hereafter). Nand Kishore did not contest the priority of the plaintiffs' claim and a preliminary decree was passed on 28th February 1917. A final decree was passed on 13th January 1917. None of the defendants including Nand Kishor paid the mortgage-money and the 5 biswas sh...
Majid HusaIn Khan Vs. Ainul Aziz Khan and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All831; 125Ind.Cas.578a
Sen, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 115, Civil P.C., from an order of the Court below rejecting the application of Majid Husain Khan for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The Court below undoubtedly had jurisdiction to entertain the application and to pass orders thereon. Upon a consideration of the evidence that was before it, the Court below came to the conclusion that Majid Husain Khan had failed to make out that he was a pauper. The finding of the Court below is essentially a finding of fact. No application for revision can be made under Section 115, Civil P.C., which is directed against a finding arrived at by the Court below which is founded upon evidence upon a point arising from the pleadings.2. It is argued that the Court below has not gone into the details as regards the exact property which the applicant was possessed of at the date of the application, its market value and the title thereto. Reference has been made to a decision of a single Judge in In ...
Babu Lal Vs. Raghunandan
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All841
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order passed by the learned District Judge of Allahabad confirming that of a Munsif of that district dismissing an application made by the applicant before us for an order to set aside an ex parte decree passed against him under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C.2. The applicant Babu Lal executed a deed of simple mortgage in favour of Raghunandan for a certain sum of money on 15th July 1913. Raghunandan brought Suit No. 241 of 1924 for enforcement of that mortgage and for a personal decree in case the proceeds of sale of the mortgaged property proved to be insufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. A preliminary decree was passed on 22nd May 1924, in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. Subsequently Datti Lal instituted suit No. 267 of 1925 for a declaration that the property mortgaged by Babu Lal belonged to him and that Babu Lal had no right to mortgage the same. The suit was decreed and the decree wa...
Bechu Vs. Bhabuti Prasad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931All201
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 from the decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares on appeal from that of a Munsif of that district in a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of a bungalow situate in Moghal Sarai, offering to pay any sum of money which defendant 1 may be found equitably entitled to. The defendant-appellant obtained, possession of the bungalow in dispute under a mortgage deed, dated 26th March 1912, executed by Mt. Ram Dulari, defendant 3, mother of the plaintiff, who was then a minor, for a sum of Rs. 1,400. It is not disputed that Mt. Ram Dulari was the certificated guardian of the plaintiff's person and property and that she executed the aforesaid usufructuary mortgage-deed without previously obtaining the permission of the District Judge under Section 29, Guardians and Wards Act. The result is that the mortgage is voidable at the option of the plaintiff-respondent : vide Section 30, Guardian...
Lala Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Muzaffar Husain
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.555
1. This is an application for revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this application lie within a very narrow compass. On the 26th of November, 1922, Jamil Husain and Musammat Himaiti Jan borrowed Rs. 275 from the applicant, Lala Bhagwati Prasad, and executed a promissory note in his favour. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 1 8-0 per cent, per mensem. On the 26th of May 1928, a suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 5224-0, principal and interest on the promissory note. The suit, as originally framed, was directed against both the executants, viz., Musammat Himaiti Jan and Jamil Husain. It transpired, however, that Musammat Himaiti Jan was dead at the date of the suit. The plaintiff applied that the names of her legal representatives be brought on the record. Muzaffar Husain and Jamil Husain were the heirs of Musammat Himaiti. Jamil Husain was already a defendant in the suit. The name of Muzaffar Husain was brou...
Bachu Lal and ors. Vs. Lala Dharam Deo Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-12-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.579
Barjor Jamshedji Dalal, J.1. In my opinion no revision lies. The only power of revision given to the High Court is by Section 253 of the Agra Tenancy Act. 'The High Court may call for the record of any suit or application which has been decided by any-subordinate Revenue Court and in which an appeal lies to the District Judge and in which no appeal lies to the High Court and if such subordinate Revenue Court appears:(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit', In the present case the District Judge has made a remand under Order XLI, Rule 23 to the Assistant Collector and this order in remand is sought to be revised by this Court. Previously it appears that the Counsel made an attempt to lodge an appeal from such an order just as on the civil side an ap...
Mohammad TahsIn Khan Vs. Seth Basant Rai and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All477
Sen, J.1. This and the connected application for revision hang and fall together. Seth Jaswant Rai had instituted a suit against Nawabzada Mohammad Ejaz Ali Khan and others. This suit was referred to the arbitration of Khan Bahadur Syed Abdul Hasan, a retired Judge of these provinces. He pronounced an award in favour of the plaintiff and the said award was filed in Court on 13th July 1928.2. Article 158, Lim. Act, provides that an application to set aside an award should bo made within ten days from the timewhen the award is filed in Court and notice of the filing has been given to the parties.3. On 13th July 1928 the learned Subordinate Judge directed that notice of the award should be given to the opposite party. The direction to issue a notice, however, is not equivalent either to the issue of the notice or of giving of the notice to the parties concerned. A registered post card intimating that an award has been filed on 13th July 1928 appears to have been received by Nawabzada Moha...
Munshi Jagdamba Prasad Vs. Hori Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.580
1. This case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by the learned Munsif seems to satisfy the demands of justice.2. Hori Lal instituted the suit for ejectment against Jagdamba Prasad. In support of his claim he propounded a duly registered deed of gift, dated 21st January, 1905. At a later stage of the suit it was discovered that although the document in question had not been formally proved, it had been exhibited by the Court all the same. This was a vital document in the case and the plaintiff apprehended that if the document was not formally proved, there was every likelihood of his suit being dismissed. He applied under Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit. The learned Munsif considered the application and was of opinion that 'there was no doubt that a technical mistake had occurred in this case.' He, therefore, allowed the suit to be wit...
Mt. Indar Koer and anr. Vs. Sah Dharam NaraIn and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All556
Sulaiman, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for avoiding a decree and an execution sale in pursuance of it and for possession of the property sold at auction. A suit was brought by one Mt. Indar Kunwar and Gur Prasad, the former of whom died during the pendency of this appeal, and Gur Prasad is her heir qua her alleged share in the property. The allegations of the plaintiffs as put forward in the plaint were that defendant 1, Sah Dharam Narain, had by fraud obtained from the revenue Court a decree for arrears of revenue in 1920 against the plaintiffs by adopting secret proceedings as regards the service of summons and preventing the knowledge of the suit from reaching the plaintiffs; and that subsequently he got the decree executed and 5 biswa share in mauza Sharifabad sold at auction in a fraudulent and collusive proceeding of which knowledge was withheld from the plaintiffs. It was further asserted that the real purchaser was defendant 1 himself, although the pr...
Sita Ram Vs. Kishan Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930All580a
Niamatullah, J.1. This is an application for revision against an order passed by the Judge of Small Causes at Cawnpore allowing execution of a decree passed in favour of the respondent on 9th May 1922. It is not disputed that an application for execution was made on 7th June 1925 and that it was within time. The last application for execution was made on 22nd December 1928,. as to which the appellant pleads the bar of limitation. The lower appellate Court has overruled that plea on the ground that the applicant was adjudged insolvent on 6th March 1926 on his own application, dated 11th May 1925. The adjudication was annulled on 20th December 1928. The lower Court excluded the entire period between the 11th November 1925 and the 20th December 1928 apparently with reference to Section 78, Insolvency Act. It has been contended before me that the respondent is not entitled to exclusion of this period, because he did not prove his debt, a condition the existence of which is essential for at...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »