Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All112
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs and arises out of a suit for a declaration that a house and certain zemindari property were not attachable in execution of a decree held by Kishan, defendant 1 against Hari Ram, defendant 2, who is the father of the plain-tiffs. On 6th August 1925, Kishan sued Hari Ram on a promissory note, dated 29th April 1923 and obtained a decree against him on 16th February 1926. In execution of this decree the properties in dispute were attached on 20th June 1926 and eventually sold to the decree-holder on 15th November 1926. The judgment-debtor did not intervene at any stage of the execution proceedings.2. The present suit was instituted by the minor sons of the judgment-debtor on 29th November 1926. The Court of first instance decreed the claim with reference to the house but dismissed the 'claim with reference to the zemindari property. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court with reference to the house with the resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All699
Boys, J.1. This is the judgment debtor's application in revision of an order of a Court to which a Small Causes Court decree had been transferred for execution rejecting an objection by the judgment-debtor that the application for execution was barred by limitation, the rejection being founded on the view that the question of limitation had already been decided and was therefore res judicata. The judgment-debtor contends that though the question of limitation was decided by the Court transferring the decree, that decision was not res judicata. The facts are as follows:2. On 27th April 1922 the decree-holder, respondent here, obtained a simple money decree. On 18th July 1924 he applied for transfer of the decree for execution to Allahabad, but allowed that application to be dismissed in default. On 23rd May 1928 the decree-holder certified to the Court a payment in part discharge of the decree. On 19th December 1928, the decree-holder applied for transfer of his decree to Allahabad to e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All0
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for a declaration that a deed of gift, dated 30th March 1922, executed by defendants 3 and 4, in favour of defendants 1 and 2, was null and void and not enforceable against the plaintiff's reversionary right. The following genealogical table will elucidate the relation of the parties:Mansha Ahir_________|_____________| |Gur Dayal Sheo Ratan| Mt. ManjhariBechu plaintiff defendant 3._________|______| |Sarup = Anup|Mt. Sahti defendant 4|Mt. Ganga Dei defendant 2.|Hansraj, defendant 1.2. Sheo Ratan was separate from Gur Dayal and Bechu. Sheo Ratan had two sons, Sarup and Anup. Anup predeceased his father, so that upon Sheo Ratan's death Sarup became the sole owner of the property by rule of survivorship. On 30th March 1922 Mt. Sahti, who on the death of Sarup had only a limited interest in the property, executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter Ganga Dei and her daughter's son Hansraj. Mt. Manjhari had no inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All814
Boys, J.1. A decree-holder filed within limitation an application for execution on 25th July 1927, but he allowed it to be dismissed for default. In April 1928 contention arose in Court between the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder in regard to whether by a payment which the judgment-debtor was making the decree was discharged in full or not, and in the course of it the decree-holder had to make a statement, and in the course of that statement he was asked how it was that if he had not bean paid anything he had not proceeded with his application for execution of 25th July. He explained his allowing that application to be dismissed for default by saying that he had never really intended it as an application for execution, but had only filed it in order to save limitation. This was a dangerous statement for him to make, as the reported decisions of this Court then stood, for Banerji, J., and myself had held that the mala fides of an application for execution could be considered, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All726
Boys, J.1. This is a judgment-debtor objector's appeal. The appellant Sahu Bisheshwar Nath obtained a simple money decree for a large sum, about two lakhs, against Kunwar Suraj Singh and Dalip Singh. The defendants had a decree against Ram Phul Kunwar who deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 in Court for payment, if the Court so ordered, to Sahu Bisheshwar Nath, the decree-holder. Sahu Bisheshwar Nath applied for attachment of this sum and was resisted by the defendants. Their objections were upheld by the High Court and they got a decree for costs for Rs. 764-15-0. The decree-holders of this decree for costs transferred their decree to Pt. Narbadeshwar Prasad the respondent in the present appeal. He applied for execution of this decree for costs and was met by objections by Bisheshwar Nath, decree-holder in the original suit, asking for a set off of this decree for costs against him against the balance of the amount due to him under his decree in the suit. The lower appellate Court has dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All832a
King, J.1. This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, 1870. The plaintiff sued for the redemption of certain property upon payment of Rs. 5,911, which he deposited. The trial Court decreed redemption upon payment of Rs. 7,925 and ordered the plaintiff to deposit the balance of Rs. 2,014 within eight days. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The defendant appealed against the decree. The plaintiff respondent filed cross-objections (1) contesting his liability to pay the further sum of Rs. 2,014; and (2) contesting the disallowance of his costs in the trial Court.2. He paid an ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 2,014 only. The Chief Inspector of Stamps reported that the respondent was liable to pay a further court-fee of Rs. 30 on the amount of costs claimed by him, namely Rs. 625. The respondent's learned advocate contests the correctness of this report. The Taxing Officer agrees with the Chief Inspector but, in view of the general importance of the question, has referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All141
Kendall, J.1. The circumstances from which this reference arises have been. stated very fully by the learned District Judge in his order. A village panchayat having come to the conclusion that Salig Ram had made a false statement and used a forged document in a case before it, sent a report to the Collector for his orders and the Collector apparently acting as a District Magistrate made a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional' Magistrate under Sections 467 and 471, I. P.C. with the result that Salig Ram was 'committed for trial to the Court of Session. As the Judge has pointed out, the panchayat is not subordinate to the Collector if it is a civil Court. As, a civil Court it could have made complaint itself which it did not do, for under Clause (c) Section 195, Criminal P.C., the Court to which it is subordinate could have made such complaint. That Court as the Judge points out, is the principal civil. Court of the district namely the District Judge, and the complaint of the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All824
Sen, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,400 principal and Rs. 141 interest on a sarkhat executed by the defendant in plaintiff's favour on 1st July 1923. The suit was instituted on 1st July 1926. The defendant contested the suit chiefly upon the ground that the suit was premature, the claim being unenforceable for ten years, which had not expired. He also raised a few minor pleas which are not material to this appeal. The first Court repelled the defence and decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court held that the suit was premature and reversed the decree of the trial Court on this ground alone. The other pleas raised in the defendant's appeal have not been decided so far.2. Lachhman Prasad defendant owned a house in mohalla Johntonganj in the city of Allahabad. This house was in a dilapidated condition. Under an indenture between the parties dated 19th June 1919 which was duly executed and registered, Lala Parmeshwari Das plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1931All76
Niamatullah, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal from the decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad upholding that of a Munsif of that District in a suit for declaration or, in the alternative, for possession, brought by the appellant, which has been 'dismissed by both the lower Courts. Idi owned a 1-anna and 1-pie share in mahal Idi, village Ingua. His brother, Rajab, owned a 6-pies share in the same mahal. By a deed dated 15th January 1866, Idi mortgaged with possession a number of specified plots to one Shamsuddin, agreeing to pay a certain rate of interest which could not be satisfied out of the usufruct of the mortgaged property. A balance of Rs. 54-13-9 was therefore payable by the mortgagor every year out of his own pocket, which he agreed to pay with the principal at the time of redemption. Subsequently, Idi sold 7-pies out of his share to Alopi and the remaining '6-pies to Kanhai Lal and Jawahir Lal.2. Alopi sold the 7-pies share purchased by him to the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All740
Boys, J.1. Paras Ram applies in revision from his conviction under Section 3 read with Section 15, Gambling Act (3 of 1867, and a sentence of nine months' rigorous imprisonment. It may be that Paras Ram, who is said to have previous convictions, had started anew to keep a common gaming house, and if that is so, it is unfortunate that the defect in the warrant should lead, as it must lead in the state of the evidence, in this case, to his acquittal.2. The presumption under Section 6, Gambling Act, could not arise as it has been found that the warrant was an illegal warrant, and that position is not challenged. The presumption failing, it could be proved otherwise that the house was being used as a common gaming house, and the prosecution has endeavoured to prove this by the evidence of two witnesses Md. Yusuf and Mula. These are men who were actually among the alleged gamblers who were caught in the room. The Magistrate purported to examine them as witnesses under Section 10; it may be,...
Tag this Judgment!